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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by telling the agent what it gets back ('configuration, nested settings, tags'), which is behavioral rather than restating annotations. It says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations and an output schema present those are less critical.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow cue immediately after. Every phrase 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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a self-documenting enum of 38 resource types, the description only needs to establish the read-one workflow, which it does. It does not explain the breadth of resource_type choices, but the enum carries that load.

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 67%, above the baseline threshold, and the schema documents the bucket-NAME exception and the verbose toggle. The description reinforces that 'target' is an OCID obtained from oci_list/oci_search, but adds no format or validation detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch full details for a single resource') and the phrase 'single resource' implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative directly in the purpose statement, so sibling separation is left partly to inference.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool: 'after oci_list or oci_search has given you an OCID'. That is a concrete triggering condition referencing two named siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: results are projected to identifying fields by default, and a tenancy-wide scan when compartment is omitted tags each row with its origin. Return-shape detail is left to the output 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 short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler; the primary purpose leads and secondary behaviors follow. Efficient and readable, though slightly more verbose than a single tight paragraph would need to be.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, projection behavior and the omitted-compartment case. It leaves the list-vs-search boundary unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a tool with three siblings.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents limit, verbose, compartment and resource_type. The description largely restates the verbose and compartment semantics that the schema already provides, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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 (List) and resource (OCI resources of a single type), and enumerates the service families covered. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like oci_search or oci_get, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives conditional guidance for two parameters (pass verbose=True for full objects; omit `compartment` to scan the whole tenancy), which is useful in-context usage. However, it never states when to reach for oci_list versus oci_search or oci_get, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: that Resource Search does not index every service and that OKE clusters are never returned. Pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement, then the routing preference, then concrete examples, then a caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and the example block is clearly delineated; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 read-only, open-world search tool with an output schema, the description covers all decision-relevant information: scope, alternative tools, query syntax, and known coverage gaps. Return-value shape is handled by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value on top by supplying a multi-type query example and the regex operator form (displayName =~ 'test'), plus a free_text example, which goes beyond the single example in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find resources of any type across the whole tenancy") with explicit scope wording ("any type", "whole tenancy"). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming oci_list as the tool it replaces, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit selection condition ("when you do not know its compartment"), a stated preference over the alternative ("Prefer this over sweeping oci_list across many types"), and a named exception with the correct fallback (OKE clusters never appear; use oci_list('cluster')). This is close to a complete routing rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what is actually exposed (tenancy, user, region, auth method, which compartments may be mutated, capability flags) — security-relevant context about what the call reveals. Minor gap: no note on latency, caching, or whether identity can change mid-session.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: what it reports, exactly what comes back, and when to call it. Front-loaded with the verb and outcome; no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything required to invoke this correctly as a session-opening call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify arguments, and nothing is misleading about input.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus a precisely scoped resource: the active OCI identity and the server's own permissions. It further enumerates the exact fields returned (tenancy, user, region, auth method), which no sibling tool (oci_list/oci_get/oci_search) does, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: 'Call this first in a session to learn what is reachable before acting.' That is clear, actionable when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous.

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