find_light_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely result-shaping behavior beyond that: matching is substring-based and tolerant of case and accents, which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema. No return-format detail is needed because an output schema exists.

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 parenthetical-qualified sentence with the matching rule front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the definition supplies what is needed to call it correctly. Minor residual gaps (whether multiple matches are returned and in what order) are partly absorbed by the output schema.

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 schema alone leaves 'name' completely unannotated. The description partially compensates by framing it as text to match against a name with case/accent-insensitive substring semantics rather than an exact identifier, but it says nothing about escaping, empty strings, or result limits.

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 ('lights') plus precise match scope ('name contains the text'), which differentiates it from get_light (single lookup) and get_all_lights (unfiltered list) among the siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'name contains' implies usage for partial/unknown names rather than exact IDs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to get_light or get_all_lights as alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the matching semantics.

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