search_gna

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the schema by specifying case-insensitive substring matching. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

One sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, matching semantics, and scope ('by name' = GNA short names as per schema). No critical information 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter, describing it as a search term matching GNA short names. The description enhances this by specifying case-insensitive substring matching, which adds semantic detail not present in 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 specifies a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('GNA entries'), and immediately clarifies the matching behavior ('case-insensitive substring match'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gna_entry (exact retrieval) and list_gna_entries (listing all).

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: use this tool to find GNA entries by name with case-insensitive substring matching. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_gna_entry for exact IDs), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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