ofp_search_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral detail: it matches names, descriptions, and field names, and the 'free' concept search indicates natural-language style queries.

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?

Three brief sentences, front-loaded with the main verb/resource, then matching scope, then workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description, annotations, and 100% schema coverage together cover the tool's use case and safety profile. It does not describe result structure, but no output schema exists and a search tool's output is implied; the missing details are minor.

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%, with each property having a description and example. The description adds only a general note that matching covers field names, which links q to search scope, but does not meaningfully go beyond 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 the exact action ('Search the 239 canonical Open Footprint entities by concept'), states the match scope ('names, descriptions and field names'), and distinguishes it from sibling ofp_entity by positioning it as the lookup step before full-definition fetch. This is a specific verb + resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to find the right entity before fetching its full definition with ofp_entity.' It names an alternative (ofp_entity) and the sequencing. It does not list explicit exclusion criteria, but the workflow guidance is clear enough.

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