pbi_find_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing that the search reaches outside the active profile and that hidden results come with instructions for enabling the full profile. It also pre-announces the shape of the response (name, purpose, availability), which is the main branch point in behavior. It does not describe matching rules (substring, token, ranking) or what an empty result means.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract. No repeated wording and no filler; every clause adds information.

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 one-parameter read-only discovery tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope beyond the active profile, and how hidden results are handled, which is what an agent needs to act. The remaining gap is search mechanics (multi-word behavior, ordering of results), a minor omission given the output schema documents the payload.

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 0% and the single parameter is a bare "query" string, so the description carries the burden; it specifies that matching is by words and works in both Spanish and English, which is meaningful semantics an agent would not otherwise know. It still does not say whether multiple words are ANDed, how partial matches behave, or whether the query can be empty.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Busca herramientas") with concrete scope qualifiers: matching by words in Spanish or English and covering tools outside the active profile. This is clearly distinct from the domain siblings, which all act on reports, models or visuals rather than on the tool catalog itself. It stops short of naming a sibling like pbi_capabilities or pbi_start_here, which would fully remove ambiguity about which discovery entry point to pick.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it does not know the name of the capability it needs, and the phrase "incluso fuera del perfil activo" signals it should be used when a tool may be hidden. There is no explicit when/when-not statement and no contrast with catalog-listing siblings such as pbi_capabilities or pbi_report_capabilities, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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