search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not whether it's read-only, how results are ordered, whether search is case-sensitive, or any limits. The existence of an output schema covers return structure, but not behavioral traits like pagination or performance.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking any supplementary context. Conciseness is good, but it could include a second sentence for guidance without harming readability.

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?

The tool is simple, but the absence of usage guidelines and behavioral notes makes it incomplete for an agent that must decide between search and find_by_name/find_by_type. The output schema covers return structure, but the description doesn't clarify scope (e.g., does it search all elements globally?) or any constraints.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'max_results' at all. The query parameter is somewhat self-explanatory, but max_results' semantics (e.g., how results are limited, default behavior) are entirely undocumented.

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 states a clear verb ('search') and resource ('element names'), with 'full-text' implying substring matching, which distinguishes it from exact-match siblings like find_by_name. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many alternative search/lookup tools (find_by_name, find_by_type, find_by_qualified_name). The agent is left to infer that 'full-text' means broader searching, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is provided.

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