search_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the search is semantic, not exact-name-based, and that results include identifiers with units. However, it does not mention matching behavior, case sensitivity, failure modes, or whether results are limited in any way, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the example immediately grounds the usage. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, and the description covers what it searches, how it searches, and what it returns. It stops short of describing the exact return structure, but for a query-by-text tool this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by reinforcing that 'text' should be ordinary words or phrases and providing concrete examples. This clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 states a specific action ('Find a variable from ordinary words') and a distinctive method: searching what the source says each field means. It also mentions the return value ('identifiers with units'), which helps an agent understand what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_procedure, but the resource and search semantics are clear enough to differentiate.

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 implies usage: call this when you have ordinary-language words describing a field's meaning, illustrated with 'recharge' or 'lateral flow'. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer distinctions from sibling names.

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