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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it is minimal. It doesn't disclose that this likely performs multiple searches, how it handles provider failures, or that it returns a merged result set. The 'max_total_results' parameter hints at merging but not explicitly in the description.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No fluff, but lacks detail that could be added without verbosity.

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 is likely complex (comparison, multiple providers, merging results) and has no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return shape, how to select providers, or what happens with zero providers. The complexity warrants more detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or the meaning of comparing providers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('compare') and resource ('providers'), and specifies the action ('side by side for the same query'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on comparison rather than a single search, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when comparing providers for a query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus just using a single search tool like search_web or when not to use it. The parameter descriptions add some context ('Empty = all enabled') but not explicit routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing action and specifies the output content, and the phrase 'before issuing queries' signals that this tool does not perform searches. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but those are minor for this simple list operation.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes either the action, the returned fields, or the recommended usage context.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the returned fields, and the intended use phase. The only potential additions, such as pagination or error behavior, are low-value for this simple discovery call.

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 already documents the optional 'tag' parameter with examples at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions tags as a returned field but adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema.

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 'List' with the resource 'all available search providers' and enumerates the returned fields (names, descriptions, tags). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling search_* tools, which execute queries, and from compare_engines/provider_health. The final clause reinforces the discovery purpose.

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?

It explicitly says to use it 'before issuing queries' to discover available search backends, giving a clear temporal/conditional context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple discovery tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool reports enabled/configured status and gives a concrete example (missing API keys make a provider unavailable). It does not describe the output structure, but it narrows the meaning of 'health' to configuration readiness.

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 concise sentences convey the tool's purpose, behavior, an example, and the optional filter without unnecessary detail. The core behavior is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, and an example failure condition. It doesn't spell out the exact return payload, but the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional tag parameter. The description only restates 'Optionally filter by tag' and adds no new details beyond the schema examples.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('availability/health of search providers'), and clarifies that it returns whether each provider is enabled and configured. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_providers, which likely only enumerate providers.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need provider availability/health status—and notes the optional tag filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with list_providers or compare_engines, nor does it state when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the tool aggregates results from multiple providers, as indicated by the num_results description ('per provider') and the max_total_results cap. This is important for an agent to understand the merging behavior, yet the description omits it.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks critical detail about aggregation and usage. It could include a brief phrase about multiple providers and the result-cap behavior without becoming verbose. As is, it is under-specified, not efficiently structured.

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 complexity (multi-provider aggregation) and absence of annotations/output schema, the description should explain the merging behavior, the role of num_results and max_total_results, and guidance on when to use it. It fails to do so, leaving agents to infer critical behavior. Incomplete for a search tool with these 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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the term 'reference sources' which implies academic scope but doesn't add meaning beyond that. Since the schema fully covers definitions, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states it searches academic and reference sources for research workflows, which is clear for academic context but doesn't differentiate from other search tools like search_web, search_google, or search_github. It lacks the specificity of listing the kinds of sources or the aggregation behavior that would distinguish it from the siblings.

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 implies use for research workflows but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over search_web or search_google, nor when to avoid it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what databases are searched. It does not mention that the query is sent to multiple providers, how results are merged, duplicate handling, rate limits, or failure behavior. The parameter descriptions hint at merging ('merged result set'), but the tool description itself adds almost no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the domain, and the specific databases in an efficient enumeration, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope well and the schema documents all parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of the result format or merged-result behavior in the description itself. For a multi-provider search tool, an agent would benefit from knowing that results are aggregated and how to interpret the response, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond indicating the domain; it does not clarify query syntax, how num_results applies per provider, or what max_total_results means. This is acceptable because the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a clearly bounded resource ('biomedical and life-science databases'), then enumerates the exact sources: UniProt, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Europe PMC. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_academic and search_web, which are broader or cover different domains.

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 domain scope is explicit, so an agent can infer that biomedical, protein, clinical-trial, or life-science literature queries should route here rather than to generic search_web or search_academic. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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 behavioral disclosure. It only lists sources and gives no information about result merging, per-provider behavior, rate limits, latency, failure modes, or the structure of returned results. It is not misleading but provides almost no behavioral guidance.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, including the provider list, contributes to defining the tool's scope and differentiating it from siblings.

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 is a complex multi-provider search tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the search scope and does not explain what results look like, how the merged result set behaves, or how the cap and per-provider limits affect the agent. It is incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain query, num_results, and max_total_results. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource scope: code repositories, packages, and developer resources. It further differentiates itself from siblings like search_github or search_web by listing a broad set of code/package-focused providers.

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 clear context by naming the exact domains it covers (code, packages, developer resources) and the providers it aggregates. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to infer when this tool fits.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool searches 'across' multiple named providers, which is useful, but it does not explain result merging, duplicate handling, latency, rate limits, or how provider failures are handled.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the search target and then lists the relevant providers, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description and schema together define the search scope and result-count limits well. However, there is no output schema or annotation to clarify the structure of merged multi-provider results, empty-result behavior, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so query, num_results, and max_total_results are already well documented. The description adds only minor context by mentioning financial instruments in addition to tickers and company names, but it does not materially enhance the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb, 'Search', and clearly names the resource: 'stock tickers, company names, and financial instruments'. It also names finance providers, which distinguishes this tool from generic sibling search tools like search_web, search_news, and search_google.

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 finance-specific scope implies when to use this tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative search tool to choose for non-financial queries. The usage context is present but only by implication.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the search returns 'structured metadata,' without explaining result shape, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether any side effects occur. This is a typical read operation, but the description doesn't confirm its safety or behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately brief, though 'structured metadata' is vague and could be replaced with more useful detail without harming conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format and calling context, but it doesn't. It also fails to address the multi-provider architecture hinted at by sibling tools and parameters like 'per provider,' leaving important operational details unexplained.

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 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the schema already documents semantics. The description's 'structured metadata' phrase adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what num_results/max_total_results already convey, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly names the action and resource, and the GitHub/repositories scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code and search_web. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast it with those siblings or clarify what 'structured metadata' means.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies GitHub-scoped repository search by naming GitHub, but it doesn't state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives, so agents are left to infer applicability.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool searches through hosted providers; it does not disclose provider fallback behavior, merging semantics, rate limits, or failure modes despite having a provider enum and max_total_results 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, 'configured hosted providers' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer without adding length.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives, how providers affect results, and when this tool is appropriate. It does none of that, and the large sibling list makes the missing routing guidance more consequential.

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 80%, and parameters like num_results, safe_search, and max_total_results already have meaningful schema descriptions. The description adds only the 'configured hosted providers' context, which is not parameter-specific; this is a baseline-3 situation where the schema does most of the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Google'), and mechanism ('configured hosted providers'), making the basic function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_web or search_google, so it loses the top score.

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 guidance is given on when to use search_google versus siblings such as search_web, search_news, or list_providers. The phrase 'configured hosted providers' hints at prerequisites but does not explain setup or selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that results are merged from multiple providers, whether per-provider limits apply, what the return shape looks like, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. The provider list adds some context but leaves major behavior unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the agent will receive back (e.g., URLs, metadata, licensing). It also omits the aggregation behavior implied by the parameters. For a search tool with multiple providers and no annotations, more behavioral and output context is needed.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented well. The description adds provider context but does not clarify how query, num_results, or max_total_results interact beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'images', then enumerates the specific providers involved. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos and search_web.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_videos, search_google, or other siblings. It only implies image-specific use through the name and provider list, but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It accurately conveys a read-only search operation and the source scope, but it does not describe the result format, ordering, pagination, or potential rate limits. For a non-mutating search tool this is a moderate transparency gap.

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 redundant words; the action, object, and provider list are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple schema and the fact that the description names the providers and result type, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by noting the merged/capped nature of results and the absence of an output schema, but these are not fatal 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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including num_results as 'per provider' and max_total_results as a cap on the merged result set. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('recent news headlines and articles'), and it enumerates the exact providers (Google News, Hacker News, Lobsters, Lemmy, Reddit). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from general web or social search.

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 gives an implicit usage context: use when the agent needs recent news from the listed providers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_web or search_google, nor state when not to use it, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says it searches 'across' multiple providers, but does not disclose that results are aggregated/merged from multiple sources, how provider failures are handled, whether results are deduplicated, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The behavior around num_results per provider vs. max_total_results is also not clarified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function and scope, and every word contributes to purpose clarity.

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 multi-provider aggregation complexitycasting, the absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical operational context such as result merging behavior, why there are two limit parameters, error handling across providers, and what the returned data structure looks like. An agent would likely need additional probing to invoke it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond the schema; it mentions the platforms but not query syntax, result formatting, or how the two result-limit parameters interact. Thus it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('social media posts and community discussions'), and explicitly names the platforms covered (Bluesky, Mastodon, Lemmy, Lobsters). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_web, search_news, and search_images, which target different content types.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching social media or community discussions) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to prefer. It does not mention overlapping tools like search_news or search_web, leaving the selection decision to the agent's inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states cross-instance searching but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are merged or capped, whether any provider-side limits apply, or what failure modes exist. The schema hints at per-provider and merged-result behavior, but the description itself does not surface these traits.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified given the tool's federated-search complexity and lack of annotations.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return shape, aggregation behavior, or relationship to sibling provider tools such as list_providers or provider_health. For a multi-instance federated search, an agent needs more context about scope, providers, and result merging to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents query, num_results per provider, and max_total_results cap. The description adds no additional parameter semantics on top of what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search videos and streaming media across PeerTube instances.' The explicit PeerTube scope clearly differentiates this from generic siblings like search_web and search_google, making the intended domain unambiguous.

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 about when to choose this tool over its many siblings, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is for video/media queries, with no stated boundary between this and other search tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that results are aggregated, but does not disclose how results are merged/deduplicated, whether providers are queried concurrently, rate limits, caching, or any side effects. For a read-only search tool, this is a significant gap given the lack of annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core function and provider scope, making it immediately scannable. There is no redundant phrasing.

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 9 parameters, a large sibling set, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format, merging behavior, provider selection semantics, and any nuances about safe_search or num_results. The agent is left to infer many operational details from parameter names alone.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters like tags, providers, tag_match, or max_total_results; it merely restates the aggregate concept. The schema already explains most parameters adequately, but the description does not enhance understanding of how they interact (e.g., tags vs. providers precedence).

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 states a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('structured web search results') and clarifies it draws from 'all enabled providers', which distinguishes it from sibling search_* tools that target specific sources (e.g., search_google, search_images). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many search_* siblings. It does not mention alternatives, nor does it explain that this is a meta-search aggregator meant for broad queries while specialized tools exist for specific content types. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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