search

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

Despite the absence of annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: read-only nature, result capping by maxRows, masking of PII/secrets, audit logging, and optional signed receipts. It also clarifies that the policy determines searchable scopes, giving the agent a solid mental model of side effects and constraints.

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 compact and information-dense, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, return behavior, and audit details in four sentences, each earning its place. Perfectly sized for quick scanning.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this description covers all necessary context: what it does, how it relates to the query sibling, what the returned data looks like (masked, capped), and the auditing side effect. There are no obvious gaps that would leave an agent confused about when or how to invoke it.

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. The description adds useful context by explaining that the search runs across 'allowed tables' and that results adhere to the same policy as 'query', which enriches understanding of the 'tables' and 'query' parameters. It doesn't go into per-parameter syntax, but it doesn't need to; the brief schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Find rows by a search term across the allowed tables — no SQL required. Read-only.' It clearly distinguishes the search use case from the sibling 'query' tool, stating when to use which.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use it when the goal is to look up text and there is no SELECT yet; use query when a SELECT already exists.' This directly names the alternative and sets a clear decision rule, which fully addresses when to use this tool vs. the main sibling.

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