Search resources

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds the OCI Resource Search context and the two accepted input modes, but it does not disclose result pagination, limits, or fallback behavior. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, provides a helpful example, and stops before repeating schema details.

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 read-only, two-parameter search tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is almost sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of output format or pagination and does not differentiate from sibling listing tools, but the agent can still select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a realistic structured-query example and clarifying that free text is an alternative mode, which goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Search tenancy resources using OCI Resource Search.' It also provides a concrete query example, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from sibling list/get tools.

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 usage when you need to search tenancy resources via structured query or free text, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_compartment_resources or get_resource. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative selection guidance.

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