Search Schemes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are relevance-scored and that filters are optional, but says nothing about matching semantics, permissions, or result ordering beyond relevance. A read-only search is inherently low-risk, but more behavioral context was available to give.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the filtering capability second. No filler, though it is terse enough that it under-delivers on guidance rather than over-explaining.

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 four-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It never hints at the shape of a result (fields returned, ranking detail) despite there being no output schema to cover that, leaving a modest gap.

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 four parameters (query, state, category, limit) are already documented in the schema, including examples and bounds. The description only restates keyword search and optional category/state filtering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Indian government welfare schemes) plus the mechanism (keywords) and result behavior (relevance scoring). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the id-based sibling get_scheme, but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 mention of optional category/state filters implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_schemes over get_scheme or compare_schemes, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied.

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