search_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the search scope ('across schemas') and says nothing about case sensitivity, default search breadth, pagination/limit behavior, ordering, or result shape for a multi-parameter search tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. Every token contributes to the reader's understanding of what is searched and how.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the agent has almost nothing to work with beyond one sentence. Defaults (does it search all schemas? what is the default limit?), matching semantics, and result format are all unaddressed, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It loosely covers three of four parameters — 'pattern' (name pattern), 'object_types' (tables/columns/functions/views), and 'schemas' (across schemas) — but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely and never mentions the additional enum values (index, constraint) the schema allows.

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') and concrete resources ('tables, columns, functions, views') plus the matching mechanism ('by name pattern across schemas'). An agent understands this is a name-pattern search rather than a full listing. It stops short of naming the sibling list_objects, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 phrase 'by name pattern' implies the usage condition (you have a partial/known name and want to locate matching objects), which is a reasonable implied-use signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_objects or describe_table, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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