Search scientific figure templates

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 known. The description adds important behavioral nuance: it expects compact derived profiles rather than raw data, which is a significant operational constraint. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the intended input transformation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage rule. Every word earns its place, and the instruction is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers core behavior: what is searched, when to use, and how to format input. It omits mention of optional filters (assetKind, sourceIds, etc.), but these are visible in the schema. Given the tool's complexity, the description is adequate, though a brief nod to filtering could make it more complete.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate. The instruction 'Pass compact derived profiles, never an entire dataset' directly clarifies the role of dataProfile and visualProfile, which the schema already describes as summaries. It reinforces the meaning of these key parameters. While some parameters (e.g., limit, language) remain undocumented in the description, their names and schema properties are self-explanatory. The added value is meaningful enough for a 4.

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's function: 'Search FigureYa and user-imported references.' The verb 'search' is specific, the resource is identified, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like import, apply, or diff. The context 'after analyzing the user's image, text, or data' adds purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear contextual guidance: this tool should be used after analyzing the user's input, and it instructs to 'Pass compact derived profiles, never an entire dataset.' This tells the agent when and how to call it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for a 4.

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