searchObject

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: wildcard support, the backend-filter limitation on subtypes, a concrete FUGR/FF example, and the recommended fallback strategy. This meaningfully informs an agent about quirks that annotations alone would not reveal.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose and unique value stated first. Every sentence adds something necessary: the core behavior, the filter quirk, and how to react to empty results. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only search tool with one required parameter and three total, the description covers the purpose, the query semantics, the output result (URI, type, package), and the main failure mode, while the schema covers parameter format. No output schema exists, but the description already states what the user gets from a name. The absence of explicit sibling alternatives is a minor concern given the strong practical guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for query (wildcard semantics) and objType (quick-search filter, subtype limitations), which goes beyond the schema's simple labels. Max is not elaborated, but its schema description already says 'Maximum number of results,' so no major gap remains.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Find objects by name in the repository,' and states the concrete output (URI, type, package). It also calls out the wildcard behavior, which distinguishes this from a plain exact-match search. The 'quickest way from a name to URI/type/package' framing helps differentiate it from sibling search tools.

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 description gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: as the quick way to resolve a name to URI/type/package. It also provides actionable troubleshooting for the objType filter, instructing users to retry without the filter when it returns empty. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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