trawl_search_pool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about return format, whether loading a pool is cached or costly, permissions, or failure behavior when the pool does not exist. Only the load-then-search sequencing is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than crisp precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not tell the agent what a 'pool' is, what results look like, or how this differs from the very similar siblings in the same namespace. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so query, pool_name, and top_k are each documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics (e.g., what a pool_name refers to or valid ranges for top_k), which is acceptable at baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (search) and adds the distinguishing trait that it also loads the client, implying a combined load+search flow. However, it never names the pool/client concept clearly or distinguishes itself from siblings like trawl_search or trawl_load_pool, so the agent must infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over trawl_search (with a pre-loaded pool) or the trawl_load_pool + trawl_search sequence. The phrase 'one-shot' hints at a convenience use case, but the agent is left to infer the tradeoffs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.