Search Odoo records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description goes further by disclosing the pagination contract: total match count, current page, and next_offset only when more records exist. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about cost, result caps beyond the schema's limit, or access restrictions.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return contract following. No filler, though the sentence break mid-thought and the absent sibling guidance mean it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description does not need to restate parameters or return shape, and it correctly focuses on the paging behavior. What is missing is the disambiguation from read_record and count_records, which is the one thing the structured fields cannot supply.

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% and the domain, fields, order, limit, and offset parameters are all documented in detail in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no default limit mention, no domain syntax note), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (records) plus the two things it does: filter by a domain and project a field set. It is clear on its own, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from read_record or count_records, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of a domain and paging suggests bulk/filtered retrieval, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of count_records when you need the rows' or 'use read_record for a single known ID'. With three closely related siblings, the guidance an agent actually needs is left to inference.

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