Search Iceberg Java API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral traits—'ranked' and 'case-insensitive'—but does not elaborate on pagination, ranking order, or result limits. It adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core behavior ('Ranked case-insensitive search'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and several self-describing parameters, the description is mostly complete for invoking the tool. The main gap is the absence of usage differentiation among several search/browse siblings, which would help an agent decide when to choose this tool. Otherwise, the search scope and behavior are adequately conveyed.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain individual parameters; 'packages, types, member names, signatures, and identities' loosely maps to query and scope meaning, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No additional semantic depth is provided.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('published Iceberg packages, types, member names, signatures, and identities'), giving a precise scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like browse or get_type, even if it doesn't explicitly contrast with iceberg_source_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iceberg_api_browse, iceberg_api_get_type, or iceberg_source_search. The intended usage is only implied by the name and search semantics; no exclusions, conditions, or routing cues are provided.

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