Search labor resources (server-side table query: paging, sorting, filters)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the endpoint was reverse-engineered from observed traffic and results should be verified, and it enumerates the response keys (draw, recordsTotal, recordsFiltered, data, meta, table_id, settings) in the absence of an output 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?

The purpose and endpoint are correctly front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is a verbatim dump of forty column/order/search parameter names that already exist in the input schema and carry zero semantic information. This is significant noise that dilutes an otherwise compact definition.

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?

For a 41-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the right thing by listing return keys and flagging the reverse-engineered provenance. However, it leaves the bulk of the DataTables parameter contract (draw echoing, column index mapping, regex vs. plain search) unexplained, which is the main thing an agent needs 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 nominally 100%, but every schema description is a tautological placeholder ("Query parameter \"draw\"."), so the baseline of 3 applies only because the formal coverage metric is satisfied. The description adds the framing that the parameters implement paging, sorting and filtering, but it explains no individual parameter — not draw, start/length, order[0][dir], or the search[regex] semantics — so an agent still has to infer DataTables conventions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search labor resources") plus the query paradigm (server-side table query with paging, sorting, filters) and the underlying endpoint. That is enough to distinguish it from the many labor *report* siblings, though it never explicitly says how it differs from tools like singleops_read_get_client_labor_report.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the ~70 sibling tools. The only advisory sentence, "Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results," is a reliability caveat, not selection guidance.

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