itasca_query_python_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: keyword/substring matching (grep analogy), case-insensitive semantics, and that results are API paths with signatures rather than full docs. It stops short of stating that this is a non-mutating read-only search or how ranking/truncation works, but the search framing makes the safety profile unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first two lines, then scannable bullets for when-to-use and siblings. Minor redundancy: itasca_browse_python_api is named both in the opening and again under 'Related tools,' costing a line without adding 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and all three parameters are fully specified in the schema. For a three-parameter, two-required search tool, the description supplies purpose, selection criteria, and alternatives: everything an agent needs to pick and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, software, and limit are already fully documented with examples, enum values, and bounds. The description adds only the grep-style matching model, which is useful but is largely a restatement of the search framing rather than new parameter-level guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search Itasca Python SDK documentation by keywords') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling tool with 'Use itasca_browse_python_api for full documentation.' The grep analogy plus 'returns matching API paths with signatures' tells an agent exactly what it gets back versus what browse returns.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section with the decisive condition ('you have keywords but don't know exact API path') and concrete example queries. It also names the alternatives (itasca_browse_python_api, itasca_query_command) and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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