search_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states basic functionality (find by keyword) without disclosing behaviors such as case sensitivity, pagination, result limits, or whether it's read-only. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at what is returned.

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 very concise with a main sentence and a single parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the core action. A slightly more structured format with explicit sections could improve scannability, but it remains efficient and to the point.

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 tool has only one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on output format, maximum results, or any constraints, which would enhance completeness 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning to the sole parameter 'query' by providing examples ('resolution', 'trust', 'grounding', 'action', 'NIM') and clarifying it is a free-text search term. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 'Find', the resource 'AgentForce concepts', and the method 'by keyword'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_concepts' which likely lists all concepts. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides an example of query terms but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_concepts' or 'query_ckg'. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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