Find Field

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

The description discloses that the search covers request bodies, path parameters, and responses, including discriminator variants, and mentions it uses a pre-built index for speed. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention case-insensitivity (which is in the schema) or any limitations of the pre-built index.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds scope and performance context. Every sentence earns its place with 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 an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the search scope and performance characteristics. It could mention what the output looks like or how to interpret results, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about what the search covers (request bodies, path parameters, responses, discriminator variants) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: finding where a field appears across endpoint schemas. It specifies the resource (endpoint schemas) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_field_schema by focusing on cross-schema search rather than retrieving a single field's schema.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to locate a field across request bodies, path parameters, and responses, including discriminator variants. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings like get_field_schema or search_endpoints.

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