search_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral traits: 'Search works in Turkish and English and is accent-insensitive,' and clarifies the return type ('VeriTR indicator ids'). It also implies a read-only operation via 'search.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand behavior, though it could note more about response structure or limitations.

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 front-loaded: a clear main sentence, followed by a high-visibility usage note, then a brief return and language note. Each sentence earns its place, and the use of 'USE THIS FIRST' is an effective attention hook. No wasted words.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), an output schema exists, and schema coverage is high. The description covers the essential workflow (use before get_series), return format, and language behavior. It does not list all filter options, but the schema handles those. It is adequately complete for a search tool, though it could explicitly confirm read-only operation if annotations were absent.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the query parameter's language support is mentioned but the schema examples already capture this). The tool name and description together imply the query is a search term, but the schema handles the details.

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: 'Search VeriTR's normalized indicator catalog.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('normalized indicator catalog'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by instructing to use this before get_series. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS FIRST, before get_series, whenever the exact indicator id is unknown.' This is a clear use case and references a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or discuss other alternatives like search_datasets, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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