Search Stored Procedures by Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the results look like. For a search tool with database access, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for this tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 database search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results to expect, how they're formatted, whether this is a safe read operation, or any performance considerations. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'text or patterns' which aligns with searchText parameter but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 for') and resource ('stored procedures') with specific scope ('containing specific text or patterns in their SQL definition'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_stored_procedures (which lists all) and get_stored_procedure_definition (which retrieves specific ones).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over list_stored_procedures, get_all_stored_procedure_definitions, or other search-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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