knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It discloses none: no mention of side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, result ranking, or how parameters like max_price or query_rewrite affect behavior. The only behavioral implication is that it performs a search, which is already in the purpose. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing, making it concise. It front-loads the core action ('Search') and then specifies the sources. No structural issues. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too minimal to provide the necessary context. It doesn't cover the meaning of max_price, search_type, data_sources, query_rewrite, max_num_results, or similarity_threshold, nor does it hint at the return value or behavior. For such a complex tool, the description is critically incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the seven parameters. It only references 'the supplied query' generically. None of the required parameters (query, search_type, max_price) or optional ones are given meaning beyond their raw schema definitions. Since there are many parameters, the description fails its obligation to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resources being searched ('proprietary and/or web sources'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the only sibling tool ('feedback'), which is unrelated. However, the object of the search is vague ('information'), so it's not fully specific about what the tool returns or for what use cases it's intended.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only sibling is 'feedback', which suggests no competing search tool exists, but the description still doesn't state prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where web vs proprietary search should be preferred. Without this context, an agent must infer usage entirely from the generic description.

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