surfmeter_search_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (action IDs, safety categories, executors, parameter names) but does not disclose behaviors such as how results are ordered, whether queries are fuzzy/exact, or any limits beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the return payload is summarized, and the pointer to describe_action is a single useful clause. Every word contributes.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs by intent, lists return fields, and provides a natural next step. It could be slightly stronger by explaining the category enum or how to use the returned action IDs, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the parameters. It vaguely implies 'query' is an intent expression and mentions 'parameter names' as an output, but it fails to explain the meaning of 'query', 'category', or 'limit' beyond what the raw schema already shows. This leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('less-common Surfmeter operations'), and states the search is by intent. It also lists the concrete outputs (action IDs, safety categories, executors, parameter names) and clearly separates itself from surfmeter_describe_action.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching for less-common operations by intent. It also explicitly routes the agent to surfmeter_describe_action for exact schemas. It does not, however, distinguish this from other search siblings like surfmeter_search_anomalies or surfmeter_search_measurements, or state when not to use it.

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