Search DHIS2 indicators

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

With no annotations, the description correctly signals that this is a read/search operation and transparently states what will be returned for each match. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, case sensitivity, or search matching behavior, but the core behavioral expectations are disclosed.

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 exceptionally efficient: two short sentences with no fluff. The main verb, resource, search target, and expected output shape are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place, supporting quick agent comprehension.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return details (id, name, description) and makes the domain clear. Minor missing elements, such as the fact that the limit default is 10 (already in schema) or behavior when no matches exist, are not critical given the simplicity of the tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters with full coverage, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that the query parameter searches against the indicator name specifically. This helps the agent understand that the if the query should be treated as a name filter rather than a keyword search across all fields.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('DHIS2 indicators'), and a scoping criterion ('by name'), and includes the exact return fields ('id, name, and description'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool query_analytics, which very likely focuses on analytical data rather than indicator metadata.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to find indicators by their name, but it does not explicitly discuss when another tool should be preferred or contrast itself with query_analytics. There is no exclusionary guidance, leaving usage somewhat to inference.

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