search_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only restates the purpose. It does not mention read-only behavior, search semantics (e.g., exact vs fuzzy), result limits, error handling, or the relationship between query and propertyName. The agent cannot infer side effects or edge cases beyond the obvious 'find' action.

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 redundancies. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate return format, whether results are paginated, how the search works for different searchTypes, or any constraints. For a tool with three parameters and many sibling search tools, this lacks essential contextual information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mapping 'name, class, or properties' to the searchType enum, but it does not clarify query syntax, wildcard behavior, or how propertyName interacts with searchType beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's function: 'Find instances by name, class, or properties'. It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('instances'), and specifies the three search dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_files (for files) and search_by_property (property-only).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_property or get_instance_properties. It does not mention exclusions, preferred use cases, or reference sibling tools, leaving the agent without adequate decision support.

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