boardsesh_search_climbs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about filtering behavior but does not go deeper into return characteristics or potential quirks; with annotations present this is adequate.

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 first states the core action and filter scope, the second gives concrete use cases and routes to the recommended alternative. 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?

For a search tool with 9 optional parameters, the description plus a 100%-covered schema and output schema provide enough context. It clearly separates search from recommendation and leaves parameter details to the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic groupings like 'grade range' and 'popularity' that map to min/max_grade_id and min_ascents, but this is a small addition over the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the board's climb catalogue with filters.' It also names the sibling it is not, boardsesh_recommend_climbs, making the tool's role clear among a large sibling set.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when the user wants to find specific climbs by name, grade, benchmarks, popularity, or sent status, and directs recommendation-style requests to boardsesh_recommend_climbs. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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