analyze_search_query

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is read-only ('without executing the search') and returns a detailed analysis including complexity, intent, PICO elements, recommended sources, and strategies. No hidden side effects are implied.

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 concise and well-structured: a terse first sentence states the purpose, a second sentence provides context, and then it methodically lists the parameter and return values. Every sentence 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, return details. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a straightforward analysis tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds a minimal but necessary explanation for the 'query' parameter: 'The search query to analyze.' This is sufficient for a single parameter but lacks detail on formatting or constraints, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 function: analyzing a search query without executing it. It explicitly contrasts with unified_search, a sibling tool that executes searches, making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable.

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 clear use case: 'useful for understanding how unified_search will process your query before actually running it.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (as a preliminary step before unified_search), though it does not list alternatives or when to avoid usage.

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