search_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool is a free read operation, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what happens after searching (e.g., what information is returned, pagination, any side effects), or specify cost/rate limits beyond the generic 'free.' This is basic transparency but lacks richer context.

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?

The description is two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise, free of fluff, and every word adds value without 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the search results look like, whether there are limits, or any additional context an agent might need. For a search tool, some indication of return behavior would be expected, so it is a midpoint between sufficient and lacking.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the query parameter ('Domain or fragment, e.g. "weshop" or "weshop.ai"'), achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'by domain' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to search existing Tracetify growth reports by domain. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource ('existing Tracetify growth reports') is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like read_report (which implies reading a specific report) and start_trace (which initiates a new trace).

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 provides a hint about when to use this tool by noting that reading reports is free, implying cost considerations relative to other actions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of clear usage direction.

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