hcm_search_grades

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, so the description need not restate that. But it adds almost no behavioral context: it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether q filters by name/code, whether finder is required for LOV lookups, or what the response shape is.

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 brief to the point of under-specification. There is no waste, but the single phrase 'Search grades LOV (optional)' does not earn its place by providing enough operational meaning; this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call, what the LOV search returns, or how this relates to the broader LOV utility tools.

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 the description carries the burden of explaining q, limit, finder, and offset. It only says 'optional', which is minimally useful since no parameters are required. The meaning of 'finder' especially remains unexplained, and the description does not map any parameter to its intended use.

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 clear verb and resource ('Search grades'), so an agent can infer this tool lists or searches grade values. However, 'LOV (optional)' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether the LOV itself is optional or whether search parameters are optional, and it does not explicitly differentiate this from the generic hcm_lov_finder/hcm_lov_find siblings.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_grade, hcm_lov_finder, or hcm_lov_find. The description implies a search use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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