ibmcloud_resource_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for resources,' implying a read operation but not explaining what is returned, whether authentication is needed, or how results are formatted. This is a minimal attempt at transparency.

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 (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It contains no extra information that earns its place, bordering on tautology. It is not a waste of words, but it is under-specified.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description still fails to convey what the search covers (e.g., all resource types, current account, cross-region) or what the response looks like. The agent is left without enough context to confidently invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter (with 'Search query (Lucene syntax)'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate with examples or synthax details.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('resources'), but it is extremely generic and does not specify what types of resources are searched or how this differs from sibling tools like catalog_search or resource_groups. It conveys only the basic action without meaningful scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention whether it is the preferred choice for cross-resource searches, nor does it exclude specific scenarios. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools.

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