search_auxiliary_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search specific information' without explaining match behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), result limits, whether it searches across all table types by default, or any permissions/rate constraints. This is a significant gap for a search 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 sentence that gets to the point without unnecessary words. However, its brevity sacrifices useful detail; it could still be concise while adding valuable context about the search scope or behavior. The front-loading is acceptable as the core action is stated first.

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's moderate complexity (two params, one enum, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'auxiliary tables' are, how the search behaves, what the default table_type is, or what kind of results to expect. Sibling tools provide context, but the description itself is too thin to be fully useful.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'table_type'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic value; it simply restates that information is being searched without elaborating on parameter usage or the meaning of the table_type enum.

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') and resource ('auxiliary tables'), which indicates a general search capability across a defined set of internal tables. It is somewhat clear from the sibling tools and the schema enum that this refers to tables like departments, ranges, matters, scopes, and states, though 'auxiliary tables' alone could be ambiguous without that context.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_scopes_table or search_departments_advanced. It does not mention situations where this generic search is preferable or when a more specific table accessor should be used.

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