Search the catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond them: substring case-insensitive matching across named fields, a `source` field indicating which set an entry came from, `total` counting every match, and `hits` being capped at `limit`.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs matching, scope, and return-count details into two sentences without filler. The first sentence is long but each clause carries information; the scope phrasing has minor redundancy.

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 simple read-only search tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description covers matching semantics, scope, and result-count behavior. It leaves the category parameter and the structure of returned hits to inference, which are minor gaps at this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter's matching semantics (substring, case-insensitive, across listed fields) and the limit parameter's cap on hits, but leaves the separate category parameter's filtering semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'entries', enumerates the searchable fields (id, label, category, country, docs URL, API host), and clarifies scope (your workspace's entries and runtime-bundled entries). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling catalog_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives context about what is searched—'your workspace's entries and, in your own workspace, the entries bundled with the runtime'—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing (e.g., catalog_get for a single entry).

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