search_content

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as result ordering, default filtering (e.g., archived excluded), or matching behavior. It merely restates the search scope, which is more about purpose than behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It avoids redundant phrasing and earns every word, making it easy to parse while selecting the tool.

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?

With six parameters but full schema coverage and an output schema, the description only needs to cover selection context. It does so adequately by explaining the cross-content search scope and intended use cases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of default archived behavior), but the schema and annotations cover most operational details, making it sufficiently 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor worsens the situation.

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 the tool searches across all Metabase content with specific resource types enumerated (cards, dashboards, collections, models). It uses a specific verb 'search' and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cards or list_dashboards by emphasizing cross-content discovery.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('find specific content, discover assets, or explore analytical resources'). It implies a search-oriented alternative to listing tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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