Search Iceberg Java source

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the search is bounded (limit applies), literal rather than regex, and scoped to indexed production Java files, giving useful operational context beyond what the annotations already provide.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and packs in the resource, scope, and search type. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers what is searched, how it is searched (literal), and the bounded nature of results. It would benefit from explicit routing to sibling API search tools, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Only one of three schema properties (cursor) has a schema description, so the description must compensate for the other two. It does so by clarifying that 'literal' is a literal search string and that the search is 'bounded', which maps to the limit parameter; cursor is already documented 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 names a specific action ('search'), a specific resource ('indexed production Java source files'), and a key constraint ('bounded literal (not regex)'). This clearly separates it from sibling iceberg_api_search (API docs) and iceberg_source_find_implementations (implementation discovery), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 conveys that the tool is for literal source-code search and explicitly notes it is not regex, implying a regex search would need a different tool. However, it does not name any sibling tool or state when to choose API search vs source search, leaving some routing guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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