search_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search but says nothing about result ranking, pagination, result count, or how the manual is scoped, so the agent cannot predict the response shape or limits.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the other gaps.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and both parameters undocumented, including a required episode_id whose meaning is never stated. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently in a multi-tool workflow.

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 0% for two required parameters. The word 'search' hints that query is a search string, but episode_id is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent has no basis for supplying it correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (examination manual for rules and tests examiners apply), which is more precise than a generic 'search' tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_library or explain the relationship to read_rule, so an agent must infer which search surface to use.

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 tool versus search_library or read_rule, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description gives no explicit context for selection, leaving routing entirely to inference from sibling names.

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