Search Board Reference

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the qualifier 'local', which provides context about the data source, but does not disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, returns partial matches, or handles multiple matches. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately lists the search criteria. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably defines the return format), the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and what the input means, without needing to describe return values. It might benefit from a note about when to choose this over list_board_reference, but that is a secondary concern.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage (the 'query' property has no description), so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly enumerating what the query parameter can be: board name, alias, id, or FQBN. This gives the agent clear guidance on what values are valid, though it does not specify matching behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial).

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 ('search') and resource ('local board reference'), and names four distinct search criteria (board name, alias, id, FQBN). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_board_reference, which would list all boards, and get_board_details, which would retrieve details for a specific board.

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 the tool is for finding a board reference by a search term, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_board_reference or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case from the description's wording.

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