search_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: results are relevance-ranked, there is an automatic fuzzy-search fallback when no exact matches exist, and empty results may include a guidance message suggesting next steps. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit read-only confirmation and any pagination/result-cap behavior beyond what the schema's limit parameter already states.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, ranking behavior, fuzzy fallback, empty-result guidance, and sibling routing. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains zero redundancy or filler. It is compact while carrying all 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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers search scope, relevance ranking, fuzzy fallback, empty-result behavior, and the next-step route to get_schema. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not sketch the result shape, but for a keyword search tool this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 both query and limit are already documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds contextual enrichment (query matches against name and description, fuzzy fallback behavior) but no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search schemas by keyword across schema name and description.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_schema by naming it as the inspection path, and the scope wording ('schemas... across schema name and description') implicitly differentiates from search_endpoints. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit routing instruction: 'Use get_schema to inspect a specific schema in detail,' which tells the agent when this search tool is the wrong choice. The fallback and relevance-ranking notes clarify the trustworthiness of results. However, it never explicitly names search_endpoints as the alternative for endpoint search, leaving that sibling distinction implicit rather than stated.

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