find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination via offset/limit, which is useful, but says nothing about what is returned, error behavior, or the required instance routing/auth context (only in the schema). For a search tool over multiple target types this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's five parameters and multiple search modes.

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 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The rich schema carries parameter detail, but the description omits return-shape expectations and disambiguation from closely named siblings.

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 schema already documents type, limit, offset, targets, and instance_id. The description adds only a terse mention of pagination and target categories, which the schema states more precisely. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a verb (search) and resource scope (strings/immediates/refs), which is more specific than the generic name 'find'. However, with siblings like find_bytes, find_regex, search_text, and func_query, the description never explicitly says how this tool differs from those alternatives, leaving the agent to infer differentiation from the target-type list.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are given. The target types hint at the domain, but there is no guidance on choosing 'find' over find_bytes/find_regex/search_text, nor any prerequisites despite instance_id being required.

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