search_by_validation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination behavior (limit, offset default and limits), order of results, or whether the tool is read-only. A description like 'Returns insights (possibly paginated) that match the given validation statuses' would be minimal but this is absent.

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 extremely short (6 words) but at the cost of missing critical details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness. A single sentence can be concise and informative, but here it omits essential usage info.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, low annotation coverage, and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected response, pagination, or how results are ordered. For a filter tool, returning filtered list is implied but details about offset, limit behavior, and possible empty results are needed.

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 0% and the description does not explain any parameter. The validation_status parameter is required and has an enum list, but the description doesn't clarify its role or format. The limit and offset parameters are not mentioned at all. The description adds no value over the raw 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 'Filter insights by validation status' clearly states the verb (filter) and resource (insights) with the specific criterion (validation status). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_confidence (different field) and get_validation_queue (which implies a list of items needing action). However, it could be more specific about what 'insights' are and whether it returns a list or count.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like get_validation_queue, override_validation, and predict_validation_outcome serve different purposes but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.

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