search_narration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is clearly a search/read operation (no mutation hinted), and it explains the type of data accessed (narration from filming) and the filter dimensions (field enum values). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, nor does it mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Since it's a search, the lack of explicit read-only statement is a moderate gap.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is delivered in a compound sentence. Every clause 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 description gives a clear picture of what the tool searches and when to use it vs. the sibling. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the return value structure (e.g., it likely returns a list of narration snippets or matching records). The agent is left to infer the output format, which is a notable gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of the search query ('materials, where things came from, how they feel') and maps to the field enum values (material, provenance, sentiment), adding semantics beyond the schema's brief field description. However, it does not address the 'limit' parameter or elaborate on the 'query' format, leaving those parameters under-documented at a time when schema coverage is low.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('what the wearer said about their clothes while filming'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search_garments by noting the alternative for appearance-related questions. It names the content domains (materials, provenance, sentiment), so the agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('questions about history, feelings or origin') and names the alternative tool (search_garments) for appearance questions. This gives the agent a clear decision rule without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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