search_test_results

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses AQL syntax, operators, fields, date formats, and a critical type nuance (id as integer). It does not mention pagination or side effects, but for a read-only search, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No redundant or filler content. The schema-level documentation is separate, keeping the description lean.

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 complex query language and multiple parameters, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (AQL syntax, id type). However, it does not explain the return structure (e.g., pagination or result format), which is a minor gap but acceptable due to the detailed schema.

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 83% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds substantial value beyond the schema, especially the note about the 'id' field being an integer (important for downstream tools) and the extensive AQL syntax examples.

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 'Search test results by AQL query', specifying the verb (search), resource (test results), and method (AQL query). It differentiates from siblings like get_test_result (single result) and list_test_results (likely without AQL).

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching via AQL but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions.

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