Name search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'fast, server-side' and scoping to names, but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. The description adds some value but lacks essential behavioral context beyond what is implicit.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining scope, noting performance, and providing usage alternatives. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits details about pagination, optional filters, return format, and error cases, leaving the agent underinformed for a search tool.

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%, yet the description only implicitly refers to campaign_id and query via 'by NAME within a campaign'. Parameters 'types' and 'page' are not mentioned at all, nor their purposes or constraints. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches entities by name within a campaign, distinguishing it from full-text search and listing tools. It specifies 'matches names only (no entry/body text)', which is precise.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this when you know the entity name' and alternatives are named (kanka_full_text_search for body text, kanka_list_entities for browsing). This directly helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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