Search Records

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as default search scope, case sensitivity, pagination behavior, or how maxRecords is applied.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves no room for structural cues about usage or behavior.

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 annotations covering read-only safety, a full schema, and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not explain search scope or when this tool should be chosen over sibling record-listing and retrieval tools.

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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters, including searchTerm, fieldIds, view, and maxRecords. The description only restates the searchTerm concept and adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching records for matching text. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_records or get_record.

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?

It implies text-search usage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative record-retrieval tools such as list_records or get_record.

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