search_elements

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful constraints: pset_name requires ownership, and property_name/property_value apply within that pset or any pset. However, it does not mention return format, case sensitivity, or behavior when filters are omitted, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences with a front-loaded purpose and a tidy list of filters. No wasted words; all content contributes to understanding the tool's capabilities.

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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the required model_id, does not clarify property filter dependencies, and gives no indication of what the response contains. A search tool with this complexity needs more detail.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains filter semantics but uses different wording than parameter names (e.g., 'name substring' vs 'name_contains') and completely omits the required model_id. The relationship between property_name and property_value is ambiguous, and limit/offset are only mentioned as 'pagination' without detail.

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's purpose: 'Search elements with optional filters' and lists the filter types. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_elements_by_type by supporting multiple filter combinations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter list and pagination support, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_elements_by_type, get_element_by_id, or other sibling tools. No exclusions or edge-case advice is provided.

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