search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that search returns {id,title,url} results, which is useful, and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'search'. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a simple search tool, this is acceptable. The mention of fetch(id) for full prediction also adds behavioral context.

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 the core purpose, followed by the return format and a pointer to fetch. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly specifies the return structure ({id,title,url}) and directs the agent to fetch(id) for full details. The parameter is fully covered by the schema. It does not mention pagination, limits, or no-result behavior, but these are minor for a simple search tool and the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% because the single parameter 'query' already has a clear description ('Team or league to search upcoming predictions for'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify query format or edge cases, but that is not necessary given the schema's clarity.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'upcoming match predictions', and it specifies the return format. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_predictions, but the search semantics and the hint to use fetch(id) for full details make the purpose clear enough for an agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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 a minimal usage hint by instructing to use fetch(id) for full predictions, which implies search returns summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use search versus sibling tools like get_predictions or get_track_record, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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