search_by_keyword

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'Keywords are joined into one query string before searching'. This explains how multiple terms are combined and clarifies the search semantics. It could additionally state that the operation is read-only, but 'search' strongly implies a non-destructive read action.

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 no filler. The core purpose and distinguishing behavior are front-loaded, and the alternative tool reference is included in the second sentence. 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?

The tool has an output schema, fully documented parameters, and a clear sibling pointer. Given the moderate complexity, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, how keywords are handled, and which sibling to use for phrase searches.

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 already documents all five parameters comprehensively, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that keywords are treated as 'distinct keywords/terms' and are 'joined into one query string', which clarifies the intended interpretation of the `keywords` parameter beyond the schema's generic 'list of search terms'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the CFR using a list of distinct keywords/terms'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from search_regulations by stating the input mode is a list of distinct keywords rather than a single free-text phrase, so an agent can immediately tell the tools apart.

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 gives explicit selection guidance: use this tool for a list of distinct keywords/terms, and explicitly directs users to `search_regulations` for precise multi-word phrase search. This tells the agent not only when to use this tool, but also when to choose an alternative.

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