search_framework

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does, explaining that the risks/controls ordering is a 'stable partition of the original relevance-ranked results, not a new relevance score.' That is a genuine behavioral disclosure about ranking semantics that the annotations and schema do not convey.

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 paragraphs, the core capability front-loaded in the first line and the ranking caveat second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a three-parameter search tool the description leaves the result-count parameter undefined and gives no sense of corpus size or result limits, so an agent could call it correctly but not optimally.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the non-obvious 'scope' semantics well (unscoped vs. explicit precedence, mixed results for both), but 'k' is never mentioned and the query format/limits are left unstated, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource pair ('Search risks and controls') plus what comes back ('matching sections and citable source URIs'). It implicitly separates itself from get_risk/list_risks by being a search, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 second paragraph gives real conditional guidance ('for an unscoped question clearly asking for risks or for controls', 'questions asking for both kinds stay mixed', 'explicit scope always wins'), which helps an agent decide how to rank. However, it never addresses when to choose this tool over list_risks, list_controls, or search_status, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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