search_bw_objects

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search,' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, potential limitations (e.g., max_results default), pagination, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema's parameter details.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It conveys the core purpose yet omits crucial context that would be expected in a well-formed description (e.g., which object types are covered, how to use filters). It is efficient but under-specified.

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 tool's generic search nature and the many sibling tools for listing specific object types, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that this tool can search across all object types, that object_type filtering is available, or how it relates to the more specific list_* tools. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the lack of usage guidance.

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% — all three parameters have detailed descriptions including valid values, defaults, and wildcard support. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Search') and a resource ('BW modeling objects'), and mentions the search criteria ('by name or description'). This is clear but does not differentiate from sibling list_* tools, which list specific object types; it doesn't state that it can search across all types or how it differs from those lists.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the many sibling list_* tools (e.g., list_infoareas, list_queries), nor does it mention that object_type can filter results. An agent would have to infer the intended use from the schema.

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