search

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what types of content are searched (cards, dashboards, tables, etc.), mentions the return format includes 'search metrics, recommendations, and clean results organized by model type,' and indicates this is a comprehensive search tool. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and openness, so the description appropriately focuses on operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core functionality and scope, second provides usage guidance, third describes the return format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by mentioning return content organization.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly documents all 9 parameters including their purposes, defaults, and restrictions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 across all Metabase items using the native search API, listing specific resource types (cards, dashboards, tables, collections, databases, and more). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is the primary search tool ('Use this first for finding any Metabase content'), unlike list or retrieve tools that might fetch specific items.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this first for finding any Metabase content.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list or retrieve. It establishes this as the primary search mechanism for broad content discovery.

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