lsl_search_reference

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does: 'deterministic ranking' tells the agent result order is stable and reproducible, and 'bounded pagination' signals that result sets are capped and paged. It does not disclose the actual bounds or how ties break, which is the remaining 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; every phrase carries information. It is terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 annotations cover safety. Still, for a four-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of the `kind` filter and query tokenization leaves the agent guessing on parameters it must supply.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. 'Bounded pagination' hints at limit/offset being capped, but nothing explains the `kind` enum filter (function/event/constant/type) or what characters/tokenization `query` accepts. Only one of four parameters gets indirect treatment.

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 operation: a 'literal word search' over the reference, adding the key distinction that matching is on exact words rather than fuzzy or relevance-ranked search. That is more informative than the name alone. It stops short of naming or contrasting the adjacent tools (lsl_lookup_symbol, slua_search_reference), so the agent must infer that this is the LSL-side word-index 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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over lsl_lookup_symbol or lsl_get_guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'literal word search' weakly implies it is for exact-term lookups rather than symbol resolution, but that is inference, not guidance.

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