search_chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about result limits, pagination, whether filters combine with AND, or whether matching is exact or substring. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a low addition score is warranted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with several sibling alternatives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But a read-only search tool sitting alongside list_chains and search_tickets needs at minimum a disambiguation sentence and filter-combination semantics; both are missing, leaving the definition materially incomplete for selection purposes.

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 description coverage is reported at 0% for the top-level 'params' wrapper, and the description merely recites the same filter names that appear in the schema (entity, status, session type, date range). It supplies no matching semantics, no defaults, and no guidance on date format or combinability, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('chains') plus the filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling list_chains, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to call when no filters are needed.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_chains or the other 40+ siblings. No exclusions, no prerequisite conditions, and no hint about what happens when all filters are omitted (return everything? error?). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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