search_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it searches 'by name or content' and lists resource types, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, or result ordering). The annotations carry the main burden.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for examples), but it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 many sibling tools and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, scope, and examples. It lacks explicit mention of pagination (though skip/limit parameters are in schema) and open-world behavior (covered by annotations). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% with all 5 parameters described. The description mentions 'by name or content' which relates to the query parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and identifies the resource ('Cognigy.AI resources') and scope ('across the organization'). It explicitly lists example resource types (flows, intents, etc.) and mentions searching by name or content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target a single resource type (e.g., list_flows, list_intents).

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 implies usage for broad discovery ('across all resources', 'across projects') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specific list tools (e.g., use when you don't know the resource type or project). No when-not-to-use or alternative hints are provided.

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