name_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that output resolves to an id, but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or how limit/operator interact — a modest addition over the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the differentiating 'name to id' framing. No filler.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of the domain/operator filtering behavior or the nature of the returned name/id pairs, the description is adequate but leaves the agent without a clear picture of return values or how the optional filters shape results.

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 80%, so the schema already documents model, domain, operator, and limit with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('records') and adds the scoping detail 'by display name', which separates it from a generic search. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (search_records / search_count), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'the quick way to resolve a name to an id' implies the intended use case, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given. With a close sibling like search_records present, the guidance is only implied.

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