search_web_resources_by_name

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavior beyond it: bounded OData results, published-by-default semantics, unpublished retrieval behavior, content exclusion, and legacy camelCase support. It does not describe return shape or pagination details, but with annotations covering safety this is solid.

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 four compact sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds operational information. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key defaults and flag semantics an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could say more about returned fields, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 71%, and the description meaningfully supplements it by explaining the substring-name search, bounded results, include_unpublished semantics, content exclusion by default, and legacy camelCase aliases. The schema handles top-level bounds and alias conflict behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Find Web Resources by a substring of name." It also clarifies the bounded OData nature of the search, which distinguishes it from the create/update/publish web-resource siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: default behavior reads published definitions, include_unpublished=true reads latest saved definitions, and content is excluded by default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the routing is clear for this search tool.

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