konsulto_search_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body field is omitted, implying a read-only search operation. It does not mention side effects, but the search semantics are clearly non-destructive. Additional details like pagination or ordering are missing, but the essential behavioral trait (returning summary fields) is covered.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: core action, returned fields, use cases. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, scope, return fields, and use cases. It explains the default audit behavior and the exclusion of the body field. It does not cover sorting, pagination details, or exact match behavior, but the essential information for an agent to decide to invoke the tool is present. Slightly more detail on result ordering could push it to 5.

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 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds context for 'audit' (defaults to active audit, matching schema) and 'q' (search across title, matching schema). However, for 'severity', 'status', and 'limit', the description provides no extra semantics beyond what the schema's enums and default value already indicate. Thus, it adds minimal value for these parameters.

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 findings'), the resource ('findings within an audit'), and the scope (defaults to active audit). It enumerates exactly which fields are returned, differentiating it from siblings like konsulto_get_finding which likely returns full details.

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 description gives explicit use cases: 'check for duplicates before creating a new finding' and 'find a specific finding to update or attach evidence to'. While it does not list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for full retrieval (get_finding) and creation (compose_finding). Clear enough for an agent.

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