clio_search

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the strict authority-routing behavior and that Spring verifies the effect must be 'read'. However, it adds nothing about return behavior, and the approval_ref gloss ('when resuming a write') is mildly confusing for a read-only search tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool identity and the governing routing constraint before the parameter list. Each line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. Format is slightly list-heavy and redundant with schema property names, but acceptable for a parameter-compensation role.

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?

Annotations and an output schema relieve the description of explaining safety and return values, and it does cover the routing constraint and every parameter. The material gaps are the opaque `arguments` payload and the lack of direction on when search is the right tool among the extensive Clio family. It is minimally viable for a generic connector proxy but not genuinely self-sufficient for an agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the parameter glosses carry full weight, and they do add meaning beyond the bare property titles (e.g., effect 'Required and must be read', project_id 'Authenticated Project UUID'). But the most important parameter, `arguments`, is glossed only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' — circular and unhelpful for an agent that needs to construct a search payload. The glosses are adequate but the core search payload shape is undisclosed.

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 specific verb and resource ('Clio connector operation `search`') and clarifies it is a platform tool routed through a governed connector authority. This distinguishes it from the clio_create_*/clio_get_*/clio_list_* siblings at the operation level. However, it never says what entities a search covers (matters, contacts, documents), leaving the actual scope of 'search' under-specified.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use clio_search versus the many Clio alternatives (clio_request, clio_api_request, clio_list_*, clio_get_*). The routing line ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') is a constraint, not usage direction. An agent cannot determine from the description whether to reach for this tool or a list/get sibling.

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