Search Research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('ranked results with titles, summaries, and article paths'), which goes beyond structured data. However, it says nothing about pagination, ranking logic, corpus limits, or auth requirements, leaving substantial gaps for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before return format and usage. No filler, though it is slightly padded by the generic closing usage line.

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 three-parameter search tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers purpose, output fields, and general usage. Missing sibling differentiation and any behavioral caveats, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents query, category values, and the maxResults default/ceiling. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across Grandpa's AI research corpus.' That is clearly distinct from retrieval siblings like get_article and get_latest_research. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use this to find research on any topic' implies the usage context but never states when NOT to use it or when to prefer get_article, get_latest_research, or get_topic_tree. Sibling routing is left entirely to inference.

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