search_records

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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: substring matching, case-insensitivity, and the important security exclusion that masked columns are not searched. This is meaningful context an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core mechanism and then supply examples and the exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers matching semantics and the masked-column exclusion well. Minor gaps remain around the limit and table parameters, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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 only 33% — the table parameter is documented in-schema, but query and limit have no descriptions. The description clarifies the query's matching semantics (substring, case-insensitive) and its scope (not masked columns), but says nothing about the limit or table parameters, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (free-text search) and resource (record fields) with concrete mechanics (substring, case-insensitive) and two example queries that make the scope immediately tangible. An agent can tell this apart from the analytical siblings (downtime_pareto, machine_oee) without opening the schema.

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 'for questions like ...' examples give clear positive usage context, showing exactly the kind of exploratory lookup this tool serves. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative sibling for structured retrieval.

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