search_principles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description usefully discloses that results include summaries. However, it says nothing about result ordering, whether multiple filters combine with AND or OR, what happens without a query, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return payload. No padding or repetition, though the terseness leaves several behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

For a six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and the return shape. It leaves out how filters interact, default behavior with no query, ranking of results, and how it differs from list_principles, which are meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero required parameters.

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 83%, so the schema already explains query, part, tags, and limit, including which fields the query searches. The description names four of the six parameters but adds no syntax, matching, or filter-combination semantics beyond what the schema states, and it omits limit and locale entirely. Baseline 3 applies when the 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?

A clear verb ('Search') plus resource ('UX/UI principles') and the dimensions that can be searched (query, part, difficulty, tags). It also states what comes back ('matching principles with summaries'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_principles, so an agent must infer that this one is the search/filter variant.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With list_principles and get_principle among the sibling tools, an agent has no stated rule for choosing this tool over those. The usage is only implied by the word 'Search' and the filter parameters.

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