search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search is 'case-insensitive' and covers specific fields, but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the output contains. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), simple parameters, and no annotations, the description covers the basic search scope and behavior. However, it lacks usage differentiation from siblings and doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage or missing annotations, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention either parameter ('query' or 'limit') explicitly, though it implies the 'query' parameter through 'substring search'. It doesn't explain what 'limit' controls or provide format details. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'substring search' across specific fields (syntax, description, keywords) with case-insensitive matching. This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'semantic-search' or 'lookup-syntax'.

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 its siblings ('keywords-for', 'lookup-syntax', 'semantic-search'). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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