search_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Search panel resources', which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not reveal query matching behavior, result scope, pagination, or any side-effect profile. The operation is fundamentally a search, but the description adds little beyond the action name.

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 main descriptive sentence is short, front-loaded, and free of fluff. However, the 'Args: q: Query' section is redundant with the input schema and adds no value, so it does not fully meet the every-sentence-earns-its-place standard.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is too thin for the broad scope implied by 'panel resources (domains, dbs, emails, …)'. It does not clarify what resource types are actually searchable, how the query is interpreted, or how this tool relates to the many specialized search and listing siblings. An agent would likely need to infer critical usage details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not: 'Args: q: Query' merely restates the parameter name and type without explaining query syntax, matching rules, wildcard support, or what kind of query is expected. No meaningful semantic information is added beyond the input 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?

The description identifies a clear action ('Search') and a resource category ('panel resources') with concrete examples (domains, dbs, emails). It is understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from several similar sibling tools such as users_search, audit_search, or fm_search_files, so the differentiation is limited.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/list tools. It does not state whether it should be preferred over users_search, audit_search, fm_search_files, or the many inventory/list tools, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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