Search Ballmac UI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds useful traits beyond that: synonym handling and that results include when-to-use guidance. It still says nothing about ranking behavior, result volume, or how 'best matches' are determined.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the core 'search by need' idea followed by examples and synonym hints. Nothing is padded, though the synonym list is somewhat incidental detail rather than essential routing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the 'when-to-use guidance' note confirms results are self-describing. What's missing is any handling of the filtering parameters and any contrast with the list/get siblings, but for a straightforward search entry point this is close to sufficient.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the query parameter's natural-language and synonym semantics with examples. It is silent on the kind enum (component/block/template) and the limit bound (1-30), so two of three parameters get no semantic help.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (search items by natural-language need) and supports it with concrete query examples ('chat input with attachments', 'pricing section'), so an agent knows exactly what gets indexed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_items or get_item, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search by what the user needs' and the example queries, which is enough to know it is a natural-language lookup tool. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_items for browsing or get_item for retrieval by id.

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