find_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'keyword matching' without details on matching behavior (fuzzy/exact, case sensitivity, fields searched). No information about result ordering, deduplication, or pagination is given.

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 concise with three sentences and an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main function and each sentence provides unique value. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers core purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., keyword matching specifics, result structure) that would make it fully complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: 'Text snippet to find connections for' for content and 'Maximum results per source (default 5)' for limit, clarifying scope and default behavior beyond name and type.

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 searches library, meetings, and news for items related to given text, specifying the tables searched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_library (single source) and semantic_search (different approach).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for cross-source keyword search but provides no guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer other search tools.

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