Find Content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the row shape, the null-site_path ambiguity case with the site_path_candidates fallback, and the forbidden double-quote character. It does not state read-only/safety posture, permission scoping beyond "operator can see," or rate/result-size limits (left to the schema's limit/offset and total_available).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape, then the edge case, then the input constraint. No filler, and the ambiguity note ("rather than guessed at") clarifies behavior rather than padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations are absent but the operation is obviously a read. The description covers the search-then-fetch workflow, the ambiguity path, and the input constraint. Minor gaps: no mention of what happens on zero results or how the default 500-row cap interacts with total_available/truncated beyond the schema text.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the double-quote restriction on the search term and the cross-tool meaning of site_path (the value get_content requires, or null when ambiguous). limit/offset and kind are left entirely to their schema descriptions.

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 plus its scope: "Search content by name across every site the operator can see." The `kind` enum in the schema plus the name-substring framing separates it cleanly from siblings like find_computers, list_sites, and get_content — and it explicitly frames get_content as the follow-up call.

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 usage flow is clear: search here to obtain `id` + `site_path`, which is exactly what get_content consumes. It also explains when the result is unusable (site_path null on ambiguous site names). It gives no explicit negative guidance about when not to use it versus siblings such as search_inspectors or list_sites, but the context is unambiguous for the intended task.

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