al_search_object_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'search' which is obvious from the tool name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any destructive side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the obvious.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No fluff, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination behavior, or default limits. It lacks completeness for a tool of this complexity, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names alone.

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% so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the schema, but does not omit anything. It does not illustrate usage or provide additional context for parameters like pattern or pagination.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'procedures, fields, controls, or dataitems within an object', distinguishing it from siblings like al_search_objects which searches objects themselves. It explicitly says 'Unified search for all object child elements' which reinforces the specific domain.

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 indicates the scope ('in YOUR WORKSPACE') and the type of elements searched. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools provide context: al_search_objects for objects, al_find_references for references. The usage is implied but clear enough.

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