search_job_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states the match criterion, that this is a server-side search, the exact return fields, and the next action. It does not cover empty-result or error behavior, but that is not critical for a simple search tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the purpose, state the return value, and link to the next tool. The endpoint method adds useful context without bloat.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what is searched, how the parameter maps to behavior, what is returned, and what to do with a result. No essential invocation information is missing.

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?

The sole parameter 'search' already has 100% schema coverage ('Search terms matched against report filenames'), and the description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond restating that matching is by filename. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('job reports') and scoping mechanism ('by filename'). It also states the output (filenames and last-modified time), which distinguishes it from related report tools like list_file_job_reports and get_job_report.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for finding job reports by filename and suggests the follow-up read operation with get_job_report. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use note (e.g., to enumerate all reports use list_file_job_reports), but the context is otherwise clear.

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