innoslate_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context the annotations don't: results come back as 'short rows' rather than full entities. It does not cover pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact filter list with inline clarifications, then a return/alternative note. Dense with no filler, though the filter enumeration runs slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that results are short rows and points to innoslate_get for full entities, which is enough for an agent to act. Pagination parameters (limit/offset) are implied but never explained, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: text (words in name or description), number (exact), number_prefix with an example ('SR.1.'), and document (id, number or name, only items inside it) all get real semantic detail. However limit, offset, and project_url are left completely unexplained, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Search entities') and immediately names the sibling it is not ('use innoslate_get for one entity in full'). An agent can distinguish innoslate_find from innoslate_get without opening either 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 routes the agent to innoslate_get when a single full entity is needed, and 'Combine any filters' clarifies how the filter set is meant to be used. It gives clear usage context but no explicit exclusions or edge cases for when search should not be used.

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