search_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: pagination via next_record and the convention that a zero result signals the end of the list. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search that is a minor omission.

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?

Four short clauses, each front-loaded with its key constraint: input form, limits, pagination, and sibling routing. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers input form, parameter bounds and pagination. It could say slightly more about what a match against CSW metadata returns at a glance, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: limit is constrained to 1–50, start is documented as 1-based, and query is defined semantically (words, not CQL) with an example. Only the default values (limit 10, start 1) are left to 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (CSW metadata), and pins down the expected input form as natural words rather than raw CQL, with a concrete example query. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_record, which is named as the retrieval counterpart.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it (raw CQL is wrong input), how to continue a result set (use next_record, zero means end), and when to switch to the sibling (get_record for metadata and links). Routing and pagination conditions are spelled out rather than left to inference.

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