search_records

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the vague phrase 'fixed reviewed queries' and 'bounded', which neither clarifies the actual constraints nor discloses pagination or result set behavior beyond what the annotations suggest that results are not complete.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second sentence about 'Use get_record before any write' is not about search_records and adds little value, making its inclusion a slight waste.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with pagination, enums, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the pagination contract (cursor, returned_so_far) or the nature of 'fixed reviewed queries' vs. arbitrary search, so an agent would struggle to correctly construct a first call or continue pagination.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description carries a heavy burden to explain 5 parameters, but it provides almost no parameter-level meaning. It never explains search_term, cursor, page_size, returned_so_far, or record_type semantics, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a query.

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 states a search over a 'bounded' Jobber record type, which is more specific than a bare name. However, 'fixed reviewed queries' is ambiguous and the description does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like find_client or catalog_search; it leaves an agent guessing about what is it about the 'fixed' queries.

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 says 'Use get_record before any write', but this is a workflow note unrelated to using search_records itself. It does not state when to choose this tool over find_client, catalog_search, or other sibling search tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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