find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: all query tokens must match with cross-field AND, search spans slug/name/tags/description/source_id/column schema, and include_github=true requires GITHUB_TOKEN and adds open issues/PRs plus top org Discussions. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe pagination/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded: search scope and matching behavior come first, then filters, return summary, the explore redirect, and the include_github extension. It is appropriately sized, though a short structured layout would improve scanability.

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 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description supplies enough context to invoke it correctly: matching rules, filter values, special flag behavior, auth requirement, and a brief return summary. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values in depth, but minor gaps around limit behavior and read-only status remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameters: it explains query matching semantics and search fields, lists the allowed type values, and explains include_github's behavior and auth requirement. It says less about domain and limit beyond naming them, leaving default/max limit semantics implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set: 'Ranked search across datasets, repos, domains, sources, and analyses.' It also differentiates from the sibling tool explore by saying 'Use explore(ref) for details,' so an agent can tell when find is the entry point rather than the detail viewer.

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?

It gives clear usage context through the type filter values and the include_github flag, and explicitly routes detail retrieval to explore(ref). It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance against other search-adjacent siblings, but the intended role is clear.

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