hcm_search_goals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result scope, or any other operational details an agent might need to anticipate.

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 very short and contains no filler, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. A single clause with no parameter or scoping information is concise without being adequately informative.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and numerous related search/get sibling tools, this one-phrase description is insufficient. The agent still needs to know what q and finder do, what the result shape looks like, and how this search relates to hcm_get_goal.

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 0%, so q, limit, finder, and offset are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. An agent cannot infer the query syntax, the role of finder, or how the pagination parameters interact.

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 action ('Search') and a specific resource ('talent goals'), which makes the basic purpose clear and distinguishes it from hcm_get_goal's single-record retrieval. It is not detailed enough to earn a 5, since it never defines what 'talent goals' are or what scope the search covers.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus hcm_get_goal or any of the many search_* siblings. The verb implies 'use when you want to search,' but the description provides no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual decision cues.

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