Search Beautiful Solutions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating results are deterministic source matches rather than recommendations, which helps set expectations. However, it omits other behavioral details such as result format, sorting, or how it handles empty or ambiguous queries.

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 only two sentences and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds an important behavioral clarification without unnecessary elaboration.

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 schema covers all parameters, and the description gives a fair sense of what the tool searches. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the structure or content of the returned result list, leaving agents to infer what a search result looks like.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description's list of content types aligns with the 'type' enum, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides for query, sector, or max_results.

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 that this tool searches the Beautiful Solutions corpus and enumerates the content types it covers: values, principles, questions, solutions, and stories. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_entries or map_challenge, but the verb 'Search' plus the named content types makes the core purpose specific enough.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer search_toolbox over list_entries or get_entry, nor does it describe a scenario where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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