search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool searches all tools by keyword/description, which is accurate and non-contradictory. However, it does not disclose details like output format or filtering behavior (e.g., AND-combined keywords or write_only). The description is honest but minimal, earning a middle score.

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, front-loaded with purpose and ending with actionable guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. This is an example of highly effective concise writing.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core purpose, references the scope (all tools), and indicates the output intent (discover the right tool name). While no output schema exists, the description implies the return value (tool names) and the schema covers parameters. Slight gap is the absence of explicit output details, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, this is a baseline 3.

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 all tools by keyword/description to discover the right tool name.' This explicitly names the verb (search), the resource (all tools), and the purpose (discover the right tool name). It also distinguishes itself from the hundreds of sibling tools by positioning as a discovery mechanism.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this instead of guessing among 350+ tools.' This clearly indicates the tool is for finding the correct tool name when uncertain. It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is specific and useful for a search/meta tool.

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