resource_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Find' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what parameters suggest), error conditions, or what constitutes a 'resource' in this system. The description provides minimal behavioral context for a search operation.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient despite its content limitations.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'resources' are, how results are returned, what fields can be searched, or provide any context about the search domain. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the provided information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about what 'query', 'order_by', 'offset', or 'limit' mean in this context. It doesn't explain query syntax, valid ordering fields, or how pagination works. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 'Find resources based on their field values' states a general purpose (searching resources) but lacks specificity about what 'resources' refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'datastore_search', 'package_search', or 'fetch_data', leaving ambiguity about what type of resources are being searched.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'datastore_search' or 'package_search'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for using this search tool, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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