Find Advisor Recommendations by Text Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's contribution is limited. It adds the detail of 'exact text substring' search and provides a call example, but does not disclose potential behaviors like case sensitivity, pagination, or no-result scenarios.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a call example. Every word provides value, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an illustrative example.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and shows an example. Minor gaps exist (e.g., case sensitivity, error handling, scope of search) but do not significantly hinder usability.

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 coverage is 100% (the single 'text' parameter has a description). The description reuses the example from the schema ('xfs') but adds no new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. Thus, baseline score 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 the tool finds Advisor Recommendations containing an exact text substring, specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling advisor tools, which focus on rule details, stats, or host information, by being the only one that performs text search.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like advisor__get_rule_details or advisor__get_recommendations_stats. The description lacks any 'when to use', 'when not to use', or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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