search

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). The description adds non-obvious context: the search scope is limited to the account's own data, and the output is a list of ids meant for fetch, which shapes how an agent should chain calls. It stops short of describing match behavior or result limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scoping/return-value clause comes first and the disambiguation against find_apps closes it out – front-loaded and purposeful.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (ids for fetch), the scope boundary, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and chain it correctly is missing.

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% and the param description already lists accepted input kinds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the universe of searchable entities (own records, tracked keywords, ranking rivals), which constrains what the free-text query can resolve to beyond the schema's wording.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (this account's own records), then enumerates the record domains: app names/store ids, tracked keywords, and rival apps. It also names the sibling it is not (find_apps), so an agent can discriminate it immediately.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it to locate a record; to discover new apps across the store, use find_apps.' It also names the downstream workflow (pass resulting ids to fetch), covering both when to use it and what to do next.

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