search_passwords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The metadata-only note is valuable, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, what the return structure looks like, rate limits, or whether filters can be combined. With zero annotations, significantly more behavioral context is expected from the description.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and its key safety caveat (metadata only). No wasted words, though it could arguably add one more sentence on usage guidance without harming conciseness.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequately sized but lacks guidance on combining filters, expected pagination behavior, or the shape of the metadata returned. It's functional but leaves the agent to infer important behavioral details since annotations and output schema are absent.

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 every parameter has a description. The baseline is 3 per the rubric since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter detail beyond what's already in the schema (each parameter is self-explanatory as a filter). No additional semantic meaning is added by the description.

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+resource ('Search for password entries in IT Glue') and crucially notes it returns metadata only, not actual passwords — a key safety distinction. It differs from siblings like 'get_password' by indicating search vs retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool for retrieving full passwords.

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 this is for searching/filtering password metadata but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs get_password for retrieving actual passwords. The sibling relationship is inferable but not stated, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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