search_by_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ability to return item IDs via return_item_ids, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or response structure. It is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, workflow tips, and common use cases. It is concise but includes all necessary details. The examples are helpful without being excessive.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 3 required), the description provides sufficient context through examples and tips. It lacks an explanation of the output format, but the tool likely returns search results consistent with other search endpoints. Overall, it is quite complete.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining how to use field_key, exact_match, and return_item_ids, and provides concrete examples, surpassing the schema's basic descriptions.

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 that the tool searches for items by a specific field value, targeting custom or standard fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_deals or search_persons by focusing on field-level search, and provides specific field_type options.

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 includes workflow tips and common use cases with examples, guiding when to use the tool (e.g., searching by custom fields). It implicitly suggests when not to use it (e.g., full-text search not using a specific field). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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