ds_search_metadata

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the permissive matching semantics and that result scope is selectable (data objects, collections, both), but says nothing about pagination, result volume, ordering, or any permission requirements — meaningful gaps for an unannotated search tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core verb+resource leads and the sibling comparison follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 four-parameter, fully schema-documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers matching semantics and result scoping adequately. It omits result volume/pagination behavior, which is the only notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented, including the enum for target. The description reinforces that parameters are combinable and all optional, but adds no format, syntax, or CURIE-handling detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource (search iRODS by AVU attribute/value/unit) and explicitly names the sibling it differs from, ds_search_files_by_avu. An agent can distinguish it from ds_search_files and ds_list_avus without opening a schema.

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?

It draws an explicit contrast with ds_search_files_by_avu and explains the permissiveness (any combination of attribute, value, unit), which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of stating the inverse condition — when to prefer the stricter sibling — so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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