os_landscape_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the search-by-name aspect, such as result format, pagination behavior, or handling of no matches. It does not contradict annotations but contributes minimal behavioral transparency.

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 with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose and context efficiently, and every word serves a function. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) which may cover return structure, but the description still omits essential context such as how to use the limit parameter, what kind of matches to expect, and how results are ordered or filtered. For a find operation with multiple siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It implies that 'text' is a name (from 'by name') but does not describe 'limit' or the meaning of the results. The description adds only marginal value over the bare schema, leaving most parameter semantics unspecified.

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 the resource (protected landscapes), specifying search by name. It also adds context ('AOI-first environmental survey routing') which helps identify its intended use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like os_landscape_get or admin_lookup_find_by_name, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 mentions a use case ('AOI-first environmental survey routing') but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate.

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