search_contracts

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses regex matching, case-insensitivity by default, optional case_sensitive parameter, supports pagination, and returns full metadata. This covers key behavioral traits for a search tool.

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 with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: primary function, when to use, and behavioral notes (case-insensitivity, pagination). Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Output schema exists so return values don't need explaining. However, with 0% schema coverage and multiple parameters (path, exclude_paths, limit, offset) not described, the description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 pattern and case_sensitive but fails to detail path (required), limit, offset, and exclude_paths. Without these, an agent may misuse or omit critical parameters.

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 it searches contracts by name using regex pattern matching. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contracts and search_functions by specifying the use case for partial names and naming conventions, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when you know part of a contract name but not exact path or when looking for conventions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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