search_catalog

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, how matching behaves (case sensitivity, wildcards, partial matches), whether results are paginated or limited, or what the return payload looks like. The phrase 'by name' is the only behavioral detail provided.

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 concise sentence with no waste or repetition. The core purpose is front-loaded, but it is also quite terse and lacks additional useful structure or context.

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?

For a one-parameter read-style search tool, the description plus schema are minimally suficient to understand how to call it. However, there is no output schema and no description of return values or scope, and there is no guidance on how it relates to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, and the parameter description already conveys that search_term is used to find tables/datasets by name. The tool description merely restates 'by name' and adds no extra meaning such as accepted formats, examples, wildcard support, or length constraints, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('tables and datasets in the Dremio catalog'), and a qualifier ('by name'). It is not a tautology and gives an agent a good sense of the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like catalog_browse.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catalog_browse, sql_query, or schema_get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated; the only implied context is that the agent is looking for catalog entries by name.

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