search_tools

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 discloses the scope (full catalog) and return value structure (name, group, description, JSON input schema), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential performance implications, rate limits, or whether the search is fuzzy/partial, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and includes an illustrative list of capability categories. The follow-up instruction is useful and wastes no words.

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 is a straightforward search utility with full schema parameter descriptions. The description explains the return format and next action, making it largely complete. Minor gaps: does not explain what 'group' refers to or any result limits beyond the schema, but these are peripheral.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (query, group, limit), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage fully compensates, earning a baseline score.

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 ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('WebCake tools') with a key differentiator ('FULL catalog — including capabilities NOT loaded natively'). It lists example categories and states the return payload, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_products or search_global_source_elements.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to discover tools across the full catalog, especially non-native capabilities. It also states the follow-up action ('Then run one with invoke_tool'), but does not explicitly compare to or exclude alternative search tools.

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