odoo_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the domain total and that omitting 'fields' triggers default field selection. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the raw schema, though it does not detail pagination or error behavior.

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 and front-loaded, using two clear sentences plus a warning. Every sentence adds value: explains the action, distinguishes from odoo_count, gives examples, and highlights a critical usage note. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a search/read operation with multiple parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core usage (domain, fields) and notes the total return value. It does not explain pagination parameters (limit, offset, order), but given the output schema and standard nature of these parameters, the description is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate. It provides concrete JSON examples for 'domain' and 'fields', and warns about the default behavior of 'fields'. This adds significant meaning to the most complex parameters, though limit, offset, and order are left unexplained (but are relatively self-explanatory).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rechercher et lire' (search and read), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it returns the domain total, avoiding odoo_count. This makes the tool's function specific and differentiates it from related tools like odoo_read and odoo_count.

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 provides context by indicating when to use this tool (when you need search results with a total count, avoiding a separate odoo_count). It also gives practical guidance on always specifying 'fields'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with odoo_read.

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