search_indices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states that the tool 'returns matching catalog entries', which indicates a read-only search behavior. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or what happens on zero matches, so it provides only basic 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, and the example is illustrative without being verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it does not specify the exact return format (list of slugs vs. full entries) or how the limit parameter affects results, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 50% (q is described, limit is not). The description adds an example for q but entirely omits any explanation of 'limit', leaving its meaning and impact unexplained. With only partial coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('free-text query' to 'canonical FLOPS index slugs'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_index and list_indices by focusing on free-text search. The example 'H100 spot' clarifies the intended use case.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you don't know the exact slug', which gives clear context for when to invoke this tool over alternatives. However, it does not name alternatives directly or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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