search_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add that the search is 'across schemas', which is useful, but it does not explain pattern syntax (e.g., SQL LIKE vs regex), case sensitivity, whether the search is exact or partial, or return format/pagination. These are significant behavioral aspects not covered.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, varied object types), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pattern matching behavior, allowed object types, return structure, and relationship to the database_name parameter. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 0% over 5 parameters, and the description provides no explicit parameter information. It hints at pattern and schemas, but does not explain limit, object_types, or database_name. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and names the exact resources ('tables, columns, functions, views') along with the search mechanism ('by name pattern') and scope ('across schemas'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_objects or list_schemas, which likely enumerate rather than search by pattern.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to locate objects by name pattern across schemas. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_objects or describe_table. The context of 'by name pattern' gives a clear use case, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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