Search resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the backing service and query-mode context; it does not discuss result limits, pagination, or tenancy scope breadth despite openWorldHint implying wide reach.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the invocation mode; every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety posture. The definition is nearly complete for a 2-parameter search tool, with only minor gaps around result scope and pagination.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by supplying a concrete structured-query example ('query instance resources where displayName =~ "prod"'), which teaches the actual syntax expected by the query parameter.

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+resource ('Search tenancy resources') and names the backing service (OCI Resource Search). It is distinguishable from the list_* siblings by being a query-driven search, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_compartment_resources or get_resource.

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 explains two input modes (structured query vs free text) but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling list/get tools, no exclusions, and no note on when one mode should be preferred over the other.

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