search_sites

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the name search is case-insensitive and explains the state parameter's accepted formats, which is helpful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or result limits beyond the schema.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that convey the core functionality and a key parameter detail. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main search functionality but omits details about pagination (max_rows) and filtering (site_type). It is adequate but incomplete for a full understanding.

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. It explains the 'name' parameter's case-insensitivity and the 'state' parameter's format options, but does not explain 'max_rows' or 'site_type', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 the tool searches monitoring locations by a case-insensitive partial name, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_monitoring_locations', which likely has a similar function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any context for decision-making.

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