conversation_ai_search_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate these. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as what the search returns, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them, falling short of the bar for adding value beyond structured data.

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 extremely concise (two words), which avoids verbosity, but is under-specified. It lacks a sentence even—just a phrase—and does not front-load any useful context. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is not appropriately sized; it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and three parameters, the description fails to convey essential context such as the return format (e.g., a list of agents), how the search matches (by name), or typical usage scenarios. It provides zero information about what happens when the tool is invoked, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior or anticipate results.

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 three parameters (limit, query, startAfter) have thorough descriptions in the schema covering pagination (limit, startAfter) and search criteria (query must be lowercase). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description 'Search Agents' provides no additional meaning about how parameters interact with the search, so it adds no extra semantic value.

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 'Search Agents' clearly states a verb (Search) and resource (Agents), making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like conversation_ai_get_agent or conversation_ai_list_actions, nor does it specify the search field (agent name) which is only hinted at in the schema. It is clear but lacks specificity to distinguish it from similar operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when a search is appropriate over a direct get-by-id or list operation, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The description is too sparse to provide any usage context beyond the implied 'search' action.

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