hcm_search_performance_documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds nothing beyond that. There is no disclosure of pagination behavior, result shape, or whether the finder parameter changes behavior, so the description contributes minimal behavioral context.

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 short, but brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful structural information and does not earn its place beyond restating the tool's name.

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 no output schema, undocumented parameters, and a network of search/get siblings, this description is far from complete. It lacks essential context about query syntax, search scope, finder usage, and return behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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% and the description provides no information about q, limit, finder, or offset. The description must compensate for the undocumented schema but does not, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search performance documents'), so an agent can tell this is a search operation over performance documents. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this from related search tools or from hcm_get_performance_document, leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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 hcm_get_performance_document or other search_* siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, query strategy, or which parameter combinations are appropriate.

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