hcm_lov_find

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description adds context about how the tool constructs the finder string ('builds finder=name;k=v,…'). It doesn't mention return format, error behavior, or requirements like valid ADF resources, but the annotation lowers the burden; the added construction detail earns a mid-score.

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, dense sentence plus a preference directive. It front-loads the core call pattern and attaches the constraint in the second sentence. Every word contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

The description is complete enough to invoke the tool, but it omits how valid finder names can be discovered (e.g., via hcm_describe_finder) and what the response looks like. Given the presence of closely related sibling tools and no output schema, a reference to discovery would greatly improve completeness. This is a reasonable but not fully self-sufficient definition.

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 20% (finder is the only described parameter), so the description carries most of the semantic weight. It adds meaning by explaining that the params object is serialized into key=value pairs for the finder string, which clarifies the most ambiguous parameter. It leaves q, limit, and resource undocumented, but their names and types are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 and resource: 'Structured ADF finder call: resource + finder name + params object'. It clearly communicates the core operation of building a finder query from structured components. It distinguishes itself from 'raw finder strings' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like hcm_lov_finder or hcm_describe_finder, so it falls just short of 5.

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 phrase 'Prefer over raw finder strings' provides explicit usage guidance, steering agents toward this structured approach when they have discrete parameters. It gives a clear when-to-use signal but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it isn't fully explicit but is still actionable.

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