search_restrictions

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety behavior. It adds some behavioral context by specifying that the search is restricted to one patch in the selected channel, but it does not mention output shape, pagination, or result contents, which remain undocumented.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and immediately identifies the restriction categories and scope. It contains no filler, repeated schema information, or unnecessary clauses.

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, idempotent search tool with fully described parameters, the description and schema together give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, so a little more detail about what the returned API matches look like would improve completeness, but the current definition is still largely sufficient.

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 parameters are already documented with channel, version, limit, and query semantics. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 names a specific action ('Find') and resource ('APIs carrying ... restrictions') with concrete restriction categories and scope ('in one patch', 'selected channel'). It is clearly distinct from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_api or search_resources.

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 the usage context: use this when you need APIs with combat, secret-value, taint, secure-code, or unit-aura restrictions in a single patch. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative sibling tools or conditions that should route to them.

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