search_generic_flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns IDs and implies read-only behavior via the 'readonly-owner' tier, but it fails to explain the meaning of 'configured flag labels', potential side effects, or permissions beyond the tier label.

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 concise sentence that includes the core action, the resource, the return type, and an endpoint reference. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary content.

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 tool with two unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter context, usage examples, and clarification of how this search relates to get_generic_flags, leaving the agent without enough information for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the roles of officeIDs or genericFlagIDs, nor how they relate to the search. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('configured flag labels'), and specifies the outcome ('return matching IDs'). It is specific enough to distinguish from a generic 'get' operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_generic_flags.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the endpoint mapping and tier hint at its nature, there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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