superops_clients_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, does not mention result limits (though max parameter exists), pagination, or error handling. The description only mentions that it returns matching clients with basic information, which is insufficient for a tool that could modify data or have side effects.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the action and expected output. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no irrelevant details or fluff.

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 simple search tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete in explaining what it does and returns. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it compared to sibling tools, and does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation. Given the absence of annotations, these gaps lower the completeness score.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the search criteria ('by name or email domain') which matches the query parameter description, and makes no mention of the max parameter's behavior beyond the default. Since the schema covers all parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search', the resource 'clients', and specific search criteria ('by name or email domain'). It differentiates from siblings like superops_clients_list (likely returns all clients) and superops_clients_get (likely a single client) by emphasizing the search action and filter criteria.

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 this tool is for finding specific clients via search terms, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over clients_list or clients_get, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The verb 'search' provides an implicit usage context, but no explicit guidance is given.

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