search_etl_metadata

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'search' without detailing case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, pagination, or the response structure. There is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about 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 a single sentence with no redundant words, which is commendable for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substance. Still, for a one-line definition, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and target.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, or any limitations. For a search tool with many siblings, an agent would need more context to use it correctly, but the description provides minimal information.

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. It does not explain that 'query' is the search string or that 'limit' caps the number of results. While these are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, leaving interpretation to the agent.

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 action (search) and the target resources (ETL pipeline, step, table, and dependency names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get specific entities, and from search_etl_logs and search_runbooks which target different domains. The verb and object are explicit and specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get_etl_pipeline, list_tables, and search_etl_logs, an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool is for name-based search across metadata entities, but the description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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