search_segments

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'search' and gives the scope; it omits pagination behavior, matching semantics, sorting, default segment types, and whether the search is case-insensitive or tokenized. This is far too little for an unannotated tool.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the action and scope clearly, though it could be structured to hint at additional details like pagination or filtering.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only one sentence of description, the tool is inadequately specified for an agent to invoke it correctly. Important context such as default page size, result limits, segment type behavior, and the distinction from search_assets/search_faceted is missing.

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%, with only query and segment_type having descriptions. The tool description adds no explanation for page or per_page, nor does it elaborate on query semantics beyond 'Search query'. Since pagination parameters are undocumented and the description does not compensate, this dimension is weak.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('segments'), and a scope ('across all assets'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_asset_segments (per-asset) and search_assets (searhes assets, not segments).

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 phrase 'across all assets' implies global scope, which hints at when to use this tool versus per-asset segment tools like list_asset_segments. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the usage guidance largely implied.

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