bw_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses index coverage limits (ANPR absent) and wildcard semantics, plus the cross-type default when object_type is omitted. It does not mention result caps, pagination, or whether results are truncated/ranked, which is the remaining gap 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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then usage, then the exclusion, then the routing rule. The long TLOGO enumeration is somewhat bulky but each code is functional information for an agent matching user terminology. No filler sentences.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only two fully-described parameters, the description supplies the necessary selection context: scope, wildcards, type filtering, and the ANPR exclusion. It does not describe return shape, but no output schema exists to cover it and the tool is a simple lookup, so the gap is minor.

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 100% — both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the same wildcard example and the same object_type value list. The description largely restates this ('Pass object_type to restrict results... omit it to search across all types'), so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Universal search for BW objects by name or description') and enumerates the covered object types with their TLOGO codes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the many type-specific get/list siblings (bw_get_adso, bw_get_query, etc.) that appear in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('whenever the user wants to find, list, or look up any BW object'), an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('Analysis processes (ANPR) are not in the search index — list them with bw_read_metadata_tables instead'), and a routing rule ('Prefer this tool over type-specific get/list tools whenever the object name is unknown or a pattern is given').

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