find_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of pagination, sorting, or that it returns a filtered list. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the description is neutral and consistent, but it doesn't disclose anything beyond what annotations already imply.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains zero wasted words and immediately communicates the core function. This is excellent for quick parsing by an agent.

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 search tool with 4 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits any hint about the limit parameter, default behavior, or how multiple filters interact. Since the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description doesn't fully equip an agent to use the tool optimally in all scenarios, especially given the many sibling tools.

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 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions 'name, type, or tool number' which maps to query, operationType, and toolNumber, but provides no details on how these parameters behave—e.g., whether query is a substring match, case sensitivity, or how they combine. The limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description only lists search dimensions without semantic depth.

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 the tool's function: searching operations by name, type, or tool number. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('operations') and lists the key search dimensions. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_operations or get_operation, the name and description make the search/filter intent evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_operations lists all operations or that get_operation fetches a specific one, nor does it state any conditions under which find_operations is preferred. Users must infer usage from the name and description.

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