search_decisions

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description usefully adds that matching is case-insensitive and which fields are searched, but says nothing about match type (substring vs exact), result limits, or ordering.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable-field list is the densest useful information it carries. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a search tool with a single undocumented free-text parameter, the definition omits match semantics and result behavior, leaving the agent to guess at query construction.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does so by enumerating the searchable fields, but doesn't explain syntax, whether the value spans all fields or one, or how multiple terms combine.

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 (search) and resource (decision log), and enumerates the searchable fields (ticket id, outcome, AI category, priority, reject reason). This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling recent_decisions, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite three siblings (queue_status, pending_items, recent_decisions). The agent must infer that this is the free-text lookup tool for the decision log.

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