search_schema_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses ranking behavior ('prefix matches rank first'), return structure ('ranked candidates {id, kind, label, sub}'), and fuzzy matching. This is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention edge cases like no results or query length constraints, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior. Every phrase adds value (scope, downstream usage, output shape, ranking). No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 4 params and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the kinds searched, the return format, ranking order, and downstream consumers. It is missing explicit guidance on limit and endpoint semantics, but those are partially covered by schema. Overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50% (kinds and endpoint have descriptions; query and limit do not). The description adds meaning for query ('fuzzy names') and kinds ('Graph entity types, permission scopes, and Entra roles'), but it does not clarify limit or endpoint beyond schema defaults. It partially compensates for the gap but not fully.

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 is very specific: 'Name search across Graph entity types, permission scopes, and Entra roles' names the verb, resources, and scope. It also states the outcome ('resolves fuzzy names to canonical node ids') and explicitly references sibling tools visualize_schema_graph / expand_schema_node, which clearly differentiates it from other search tools like search_changes.

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 explicitly states the downstream use case ('for visualize_schema_graph / expand_schema_node'), telling the agent when to invoke this tool. It implies an alternative (for changing data, use search_changes or get_recent_changes), but it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools. Clear context but not a full exclusionary set.

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