Search Marking Codes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions the endpoint and method, but fails to disclose required permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a search tool, this is insufficient.

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, very concise, no wasted words. Could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given sibling tools and no output schema, the description lacks differentiation from similar tools and omits return value details. Behavioral traits are missing. Incomplete for an API search tool.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds context that body contains 'filter fields supported by the API', which is a slight improvement over the schema's generic description. 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?

The description clearly states 'Search for marking codes (CIS)', using a specific verb and resource. The title 'Search Marking Codes' reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chz_cis_info (likely get specific) and chz_doc_cis_list (by document).

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?

No guidance on when to use this search vs alternatives. Description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like chz_cis_info or chz_doc_cis_list.

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