Search Foundry Entities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying the return fields and giving concrete filter examples. This enriches the agent's understanding of behavior without contradicting annotations. It could mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but the additional context is valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concrete filter example. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, return fields, and usage context, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the complete schema annotations. Minor omissions like pagination or error behavior are acceptable for a search tool with read-only annotations.

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?

All parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the description adds little beyond that. The filter example in the description overlaps with the schema description, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it searches for Foundry entities by name and returns UUID, documentType, subType, and package. It also positions itself as 'the primary way to turn a name into a UUID for use with other tools,' which distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools.

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?

The description explicitly frames the tool's role as the name-to-UUID lookup, giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not name specific alternatives, such as foundry_get_entity, but the implication is present. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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