search_database

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive fuzzy/substring matching and the searchable entity scope, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how max_results affects behavior, whether pagination exists, or what the return structure looks like.

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 wasted wording. It efficiently communicates the operation, matching behavior, and scope.

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 search tool with four parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics and result behavior that an agent would need to invoke the tool reliably.

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 for four undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for the query concept and search targets, but does not explain the required dbc_path, the max_results default or limit behavior, or the available search_type values.

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 specific verb and resource (search the database) and enumerates searchable DBC entity types such as messages, signals, IDs, units, comments, and value tables. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like query_decoded_signals or inspect_database_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_database_summary, query_decoded_signals, or filter_and_export_trace. The only usage cue is the implicit meaning of 'search', with no stated exclusions or preconditions.

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