search_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool searches and returns excerpts, implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or other important behaviors.

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 of 10 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function but omits details like whether results are paginated, how many excerpts are returned, or any filtering capabilities. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (query) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning by indicating the query is used to search markdown files, but it does not explain query syntax, supported operators, or how excerpts are matched. The description partially compensates but remains insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search markdown research protocol files and return relevant excerpts.' It specifies the verb (Search), the resource (markdown research protocol files), and the output (relevant excerpts). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like compute_aaa_statistics or find_aaa_patients.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it's for searching protocol files, it does not state when not to use it or suggest other tools for different contexts. The sibling tools list includes search_publications, but no differentiation is made.

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