search_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: matching is exact substring only, with no synonyms or stemming, unlike find_variables. It doesn't cover auth/permission needs, but the output schema exists and return shape is not its job. Solid disclosure of the most decision-relevant behavior.

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 purpose before the guidance note, and the two sentences each carry information. The starred alternative note is longer but earns its place by preventing misuse against find_variables.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, matching limitations, and the alternative tool. For a 3-parameter search tool this is 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 limit and schema are fully documented in the schema already, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only a hint about keyword content (English words), which the schema also states, so little value beyond structured fields.

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 (keyword search over physical structure: table names, table comments, column names, column comments) and explicitly contrasts itself with find_variables. An agent can distinguish this from list_tables, describe_table, and find_variables without opening any 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?

Gives both when-to-use ('I roughly know the table/column name, help me locate', or view a table's comment) and when-not-to-use, naming the sibling find_variables and explaining what that tool searches instead. It even explains why find_variables is better for semantic queries (stemming, relevance ranking).

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