search_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions search functionality but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'Find'). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps despite the concise structure.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds marginal value by hinting at search types ('name, class, or properties'), which aligns with the 'searchType' enum, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.

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 the action ('Find') and target ('instances'), specifying search criteria ('by name, class, or properties'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_by_property' by covering multiple search types, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_files' or other search tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_property' or 'search_files' is provided. The description implies usage for finding instances, but lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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