search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read-only search but never states that it is non-mutating, nor how results are ranked, truncated, or what a returned entry contains. It is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the use case, then examples. Nothing is redundant and the examples are illustrative rather than 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 no output schema, the description is the only place a return-value contract could be stated, yet it never says what search returns (tool names, descriptions, input schemas) or how many results. For a discovery tool meant to route an agent, the shape of the response is a notable omission.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' fully. The description's example queries ('add user to group', 'list applications') duplicate what the schema description already provides, adding no new syntax or constraint information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('all available Beyond Identity API tools') and makes clear this is a meta-discovery tool, which no sibling tool does. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the concrete CRUD siblings like create_user or list_groups.

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 'Use this to discover which tools are available for a task,' which is a clear when-to-use statement, and the example queries reinforce the invocation context. It does not name exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to skip search and call a known tool directly), so it stops short of 5.

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