searchObject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for objects' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, though more content would be beneficial.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'objects' means in this context, what search capabilities exist, what results look like, or how to interpret them. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples.

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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'searchObject' without adding specificity. It doesn't specify what types of objects, in what context, or what search mechanism is used. While it includes a verb ('Search') and resource ('objects'), it lacks differentiation from potential sibling tools like 'findObjectPath' or 'findDefinition' that might also search for objects.

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. With many sibling tools that might involve searching or finding objects (e.g., 'findObjectPath', 'findDefinition', 'objectTypes'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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