search_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it performs a search (implying read-only), but does not disclose any traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence for the purpose and two bullet points for parameters. Every word is necessary and no fluff exists. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and its inputs. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the output schema likely handles that. For a search tool, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description adds meaningful explanations: 'The numeric ID of the project' for project_id and 'Search query string to match against key names' for search. This adds value beyond the schema's titles.

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 'Search for localization keys by name in a Tolgee project,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (localization keys). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_keys (which lists all keys) and import_keys (which imports keys).

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to find keys by name) through its parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like list_keys or search alternatives. Usage context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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