search_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include version numbers and IDs but does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or case sensitivity of search. This is adequate but not fully transparent for a search tool.

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 concise with two clear sentences plus two example questions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose and output sufficiently. However, it could elaborate on search behavior (e.g., partial match, fuzzy search) for completeness.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds 'by name' for the query parameter but no additional context for limit. Since schema already covers parameter meaning, description adds minimal value beyond it.

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 clearly states the tool searches CDN properties by name and specifies the returned data (version numbers, staging/production versions, group/contract IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target different resources like edgeworkers or DNS records.

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 example questions that imply search use cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_property_details for detailed property info. No exclusion criteria or comparison with siblings is provided.

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