search_records

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

The schema includes readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which already convey safety and idempotency. The description adds only the example and module coverage but does not describe pagination behavior, error cases, or return format, so it adds limited value beyond these annotations.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage with an example. It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or result structure, but these are partially inferable from the schema parameters and the example. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling search tools, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description includes an example that illustrates how to combine module, criteria, and fields, adding modest contextual meaning but not explaining parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('CRM and Books records') with flexible criteria. Distinguishes from sibling search tools by explicitly covering both CRM and Books modules, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use for finding specific records by name, email, phone, or other fields.' This tells when to use the tool but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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