searchObjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the search is case-insensitive, excludes system objects, and the exact object types covered are enumerated. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, the behavioral scope follows immediately, and the follow-up tool recommendation is tacked on efficiently. Every element earns its place.

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?

Complete for a search tool. Output schema covers return values, annotations cover the safety profile, both required parameters are documented, and the description covers purpose, scope, case-sensitivity, and follow-up guidance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself — the description need not repeat format details. The description's 'full or partial name' phrasing does reinforce the namePattern semantics (substring vs. explicit pattern), which is helpful context, but adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find database objects') and immediately scopes the behavior: 'Searches non-system tables, views, routines, packages, sequences and synonyms case-insensitively'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like listTables and listRoutines, which enumerate all objects, versus this one which searches by name.

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 trigger condition is stated explicitly: use it 'when only a full or partial name is known'. It also names the follow-up action ('use describeTable after finding a table or view whose structure is needed'). It stops short of explicitly excluding enumeration tools like listTables/listRoutines for exhaustive discovery scenarios, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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