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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description's 'Search/list' wording aligns with read-only behavior. It does not add extensive behavioral detail such as permissions or rate limits, but the annotation lowers the bar and no contradiction exists.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, prerequisite guidance, and type examples. It avoids fluff and presents information in a clear, scannable structure.

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 description supplies important context about discovering object types and enumerates system types while noting domain variability. There is no output schema, so return-value details are not required, but the description could have explicitly stated that results are a list of matching objects for absolute completeness.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, aside from reinforcing that object_type can be a system or domain type, which is already partially covered by the parameter description.

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 the tool searches/lists objects of any type in the current domain, using the specific verbs 'Search/list' and identifying the resource as objects. It also distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like crud_get by emphasizing search/list over single-object retrieval.

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 provides useful guidance to call schema_list first to discover object types and clarifies that domain types vary. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crud_get or crud_create, but the search/list framing and prerequisite guidance are clear enough for typical use.

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