Search Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious scoping behavior — allowlist narrowing and implicit system-library exclusion — which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and matching fields, then the scoping rules. No filler, though the allowlist/system behavior is stated twice in compressed form and could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers matching semantics, wildcard, default scope, and allowlist behavior — everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including wildcard usage and the include_system/allowlist interaction. The description largely restates this, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (columns) plus the matching fields (COLUMN_NAME, SYSTEM_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_TEXT) and the cross-library scope. This clearly separates it from the sibling search_tables, which an agent could otherwise confuse with a table lookup.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: wildcard syntax, the allowlist constraint, and the default of skipping Q*/SYS* libraries unless include_system is true. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or say when NOT to use it, but the conditions for correct use are clear.

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