search_tools

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

The readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the search spans the entire catalog including capabilities absent from the native toolset, and it specifies exactly what is returned (name, group, description, JSON input schema). No pagination or ranking caveats are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract and next step. The parenthetical capability list is long but earns its place by signalling the breadth of the catalog. Nothing is redundant, though the enumeration could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so ('name, group, description and JSON input schema'). Combined with the disabled-native feature hint and the invoke_tool handoff, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ranking/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so all three parameters (query, group, limit) are already documented in the schema, including keyword examples. The description adds the concept of full-catalog scope but no syntax, format, or interaction detail for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb (find) and resource (WebCake tools) with an explicit scope: keyword search across the FULL catalog, including capabilities not loaded natively. The return contract ('name, group, description and JSON input schema') further nails down what the tool does, and it is clearly distinct from content-level searchers like search_products or search_promotions.

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 a clear use case (locating tools not loaded natively) and a follow-up workflow ('Then run one with invoke_tool'), which routes the agent to the companion tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_tool_groups (only referenced indirectly in the schema) or state when NOT to use it.

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