Search RBA tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the 'readable flag' and that 'refresh is off by default', which provides behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences convey the tool's purpose and key behavior (readable flag, refresh default) without unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded and efficiently scoped.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief but adequate for a simple search tool. However, it does not explain what the 'readable flag' means or how search results are ordered, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the 'readable flag' and that refresh is off by default, but the latter is already in the schema (default: false). No additional semantics are added for parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it searches the RBA table catalogue with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'tables'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_search_series by focusing on tables rather than series.

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 implies searching tables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_search_series. It lacks when-not-to-use instructions or scenarios for alternatives.

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