search_metadata

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

The description clearly frames the tool as a non-destructive metadata search and enumerates the content areas it covers. With no annotations, the description carries some behavioral burden, but it does not mention result-set behavior, search matching semantics, pagination, or access requirements.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable detail about what is being searched without repeating the schema.

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?

Inputs are fully documented by the schema, and the description explains what content is searched. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the search returns, which leaves the result shape and semantics somewhat unspecified for a tool that produces results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful list of metadata types but provides no additional meaning for the query or scope parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names the exact operation ('Search'), the full resource ('all metadata'), and the dimensions searched (object names, labels, field names, descriptions, formulas). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling list/get tools, which are narrower browsing or detail operations.

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 implies use when you need keyword-based discovery across many metadata types, and the sibling names reinforce that this is the cross-cutting search option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs list_fields/get_object_details, or when not to use it.

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