find_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating that it searches 'across all relevant subjects' and showing domain-filtered examples. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any limitations. For a non-destructive search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, three illustrative examples, and a practical follow-up note. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are concise and non-redundant. No wasted words.

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?

The description provides scope, usage examples, and a clear next-step workflow, which is sufficient for a search tool with a straightforward interface. It does not specify the full return structure, but since there is no output schema, the mention of 'var_id' gives a key hint. Minor gaps around pagination or result size are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete usage examples, clarifying domain codes (e.g., '3500' = East Java), and referencing supporting tools like resolve_domain and list_subjects. This enhances parameter understanding.

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+resource: 'Search BPS data variables by keyword.' It also adds the scope 'across all relevant subjects' and provides examples that clarify the resource. This differentiates it from siblings like list_variables, which list variables rather than search by keyword.

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 includes a clear follow-up instruction: 'After getting a var_id from this tool, use get_dynamic_data to retrieve the data.' It also gives example calls with domain and keyword usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over related siblings like list_variables or find_data, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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