sb_catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: omitting query browses all types, and detail:true behaves like sb_traits_for. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but given the read-only annotation, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the browse-omission behavior and the detail alternative succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage patterns (query vs. browse, detail flag). It doesn't specify the return format or how limit behaves, but those are implied or in the schema, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. Slightly incomplete but adequate.

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 67% (limit and detail have descriptions, query does not). The description adds meaning to query by explaining it as 'by what it does' and clarifies detail's effect, partially compensating for the missing query description. It doesn't elaborate on limit's usage beyond the schema's default note.

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: 'Find an element type by what it does' – a specific verb (find) and resource (element type). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that detail:true provides the same AI hints as sb_traits_for, and that omitting query browses all types, which differentiates it from other catalog tools.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to omit query (to browse every type and discover unknown elements) and notes an alternative for AI hints (sb_traits_for). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other siblings like sb_site_list or sb_look, leaving some ambiguity.

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