search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies it is a read operation. It does not state whether results are paginated, whether limit caps returned matches, how matching is performed (tag/query/method combined or any-of), or what the result payload looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 4-parameter catalog-search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits filtering semantics, result shape, and pagination behavior, leaving the agent to guess at how to construct a useful query.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (tag, limit, query, method). The agent cannot tell from either source whether these filters are ANDed, what 'tag' refers to, or that limit defaults to 100 and maxes at 100 — a notable gap for a search tool.

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 (all operations in the official Frame.io V4 OpenAPI catalog), which is more precise than a bare 'search'. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings such as get_tool_schema or invoke_tool, so the agent must infer the discovery-to-invocation workflow.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_tool_schema, invoke_tool) that operate on the same catalog. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no statement of what to do with the results.

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