search-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states the tool 'returns matching tool names + descriptions' and implies a read-only search. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or harmless, but the nature of a search tool is evident. A 4 is appropriate for lacking explicit safety disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose directly; the second provides a clear action sequence. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of a search tool (no output schema, low complexity), the description covers the essential purpose and usage advice. It doesn't explain the result format (e.g., relevance ordering) but is sufficient for an agent to use it effectively. A 4 reflects that it's complete but could add minor details about result structure.

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%—all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the query description and does not elaborate on category or limit. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'discover' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available tools across all 158+ tools'. It distinguishes itself from siblings which are all specific action tools (create, delete, get, etc.) by being a meta-discover tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first to navigate the surface efficiently — call this, then call the specific tool you need.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (before other tools) and by implication when not to use it (if the tool is already known). No alternative is mentioned, but it's clear as a discovery tool.

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