fm_find_records

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 transparency. It only mentions that the query is an array of search objects, but does not disclose important behaviors such as how multiple query objects are combined (AND/OR), what happens on no results, performance implications, or whether the search is case-sensitive.

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 concise at two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks important details that could be added without becoming verbose, such as return format or example usage.

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 there is no output schema, the description should at least mention the return format (e.g., list of records). It does not cover pagination, error handling, or how to use multiple query criteria. The tool has 5 parameters but the description glosses over their interaction. It is incomplete for the agent to use 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a slight clarification that the query is an 'array of search criteria objects' but does not explain the structure of those objects or how to construct complex queries. It does not improve meaningfully beyond the 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 clearly states the tool finds records using a query, specifying the verb 'find' and the resource 'records'. It mentions the query is an array of objects, which distinguishes it from other retrieval tools like fm_get_records that likely return all records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fm_get_records or fm_get_record_by_id. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and parameters.

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