creden_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does most of it: it reveals the non-destructive enumeration behavior, the exact result element shape, and the follow-up handoff. It never states result caps, pagination, or whether an empty/ambiguous query errors out, which matters for a search that is meant to enumerate 'all candidates'.

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?

Purpose and the when-to-use rule are front-loaded, and the examples are short and illustrative. The 'Args' and 'Returns' blocks partially restate the input schema and the existing output schema, which is redundant given structured fields already carry that.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the fields. For a two-parameter read-only search the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only edge-case behavior (no matches, result limits, ambiguous lang) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: 'text' is documented as partial or full name in Thai or English, and 'lang' is given the actual enum values 'th'/'en' with the default — information the schema omits since it declares no enums. Every parameter is covered with semantics beyond its name.

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 and resource ('Search Thai companies by name') plus the scope of results ('return all candidates (autocomplete)'). It explicitly names the sibling creden_lookup and explains the division of labor, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('when a name is ambiguous and you want the user to pick before fetching full details'), a follow-up action (pass the chosen id to creden_lookup), and a routing rule ('prefer this over web search'). The two Thai-language examples further pin down the invoke-vs-not decision.

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