search

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the return format, the scope limitation ('No private cases'), the required follow-up action, and a failure mode: 'An incomplete index produces an error rather than an apparently exhaustive compatibility response.' This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: scope, return type, usage caveat, and error behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: what is searched, what is returned, what is excluded, how to use the results, and how incomplete data is handled. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema exposes a single required 'query' string, and the description's 'Search...' phrasing implies it is the search text. However, the description adds no detailed parameter semantics such as query syntax, expected format, or constraints, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent to infer the meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search public MRX educational guides' and specifies the return type ('citable canonical document IDs'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'mrx_search_guides', so the agent may struggle to distinguish between the two.

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 useful usage context: it excludes private cases and instructs the agent to 'Fetch each source before relying on it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over mrx_search_guides, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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