search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explains how parameters like strategy, expand_query, and generate_answer affect behavior, but it does not describe the overall response format, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether any state is modified).

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 well-organized with a clear header, parameter list, and examples. Every section is useful, though the examples could be considered slightly verbose for an API description. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement and remains readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It indirectly hints at response composition via include_sources and generate_answer, but it lacks an explicit statement about the response structure, limiting completeness for an agent anticipating the tool's output.

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 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats this information and adds natural language examples, but it does not introduce deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it only slightly compensates.

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 opens with 'Search documents in a Tropicalia project,' a clear verb+resource statement that precisely defines the tool's function. This distinct purpose is well differentiated from the sibling tool get_config, which likely handles configuration settings.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including parameter defaults and natural language examples that illustrate usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_config or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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