Find criteria references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and that it reports what it did NOT check, setting correct expectations about the strength of a negative result. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, an example and use case, and a caveat about the meaning of 'no references found'. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers search scope, use case, matching behavior, and a limitation. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't specify the exact return format, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that query matches field names and criterion values, but it does not add detail about the concurrency parameter beyond its default and range.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Search smart computer group criteria, advanced computer search criteria, and advanced search display fields for a term.' It also includes an example ('Home Directory') and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling findObjectReferences by scoping to computer group criteria and display fields.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('to find out whether anything consumes that inventory field before disabling its collection') and explains when the result is weaker ('no references found' is weaker than a hit). It implies when to use the tool without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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