search_flag_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a 'readonly-owner' tier, indicating read-only access and authorization level, and notes that matching IDs are returned. It does not cover pagination, error behavior, or parameter combinations, but the tier and output type provide useful behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences plus a tier tag. Every part adds value: what it does, the API mapping, and the access tier. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only partial parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks parameter semantics and usage alternatives. The agent may not know how to combine type, entityID, and genericFlagIDs, or when to choose this over get_flag_assignments.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'type' has a description), and the description does not elaborate on entityID or genericFlagIDs. The description's phrase 'which flags are assigned to which records' hints at the meaning, but it does not explicitly define parameters or their roles. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 flag assignments and returns matching IDs. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('which flags are assigned to which records'), and specifies the output ('matching IDs'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_flag_assignments by emphasizing search behavior.

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 usage: use this when you need to find which flags are assigned to records. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives (e.g., get_flag_assignments for direct retrieval). The API mapping adds context but not comparative guidance.

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