Search OCI resources

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.