Search Cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output ('list of case numbers') but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, query syntax, authentication needs, or other operational traits beyond what the schema already shows.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is easy to scan.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the tool is relatively simple. However, with no annotations and minimal usage guidance, the description feels bare-bones; an agent still lacks context on query scope or how this search differs from sibling searches.

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 input schema already documents 3 of 4 parameters (query, rows, start) with basic descriptions, leaving session_id undocumented. The description adds context about searching Red Hat cases but provides no additional detail on query semantics or parameter behavior beyond 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Red Hat cases'), and specifies the return type ('list of case numbers'). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_kcs and get_case, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_kcs or get_case. There are no exclusions or conditionals stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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