find_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond what the schema states (case-insensitive matching is already in the schema), and gives no information about result ordering, limits, or what an empty result means.

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 opening sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the Args block duplicates the schema descriptions word-for-word, adding length without value. Trimming it would lose nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say something about what a node result looks like or how results are shaped, and it does not. It is adequate for calling the tool but leaves result interpretation and the list_nodes/find_nodes choice unresolved.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The Args block restates those same descriptions verbatim, adding no new syntax, format, or combined-filter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (search) and resource (nodes) and enumerates the filter dimensions (type, name pattern, error state), which is clearer than a bare 'get nodes'. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_nodes, leaving an agent unsure which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The sibling set contains both list_nodes and find_nodes, and the description offers no rule for choosing between them or any statement about when filtering is preferable.

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