search_analyses

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light. It adds the useful behavioral detail that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination for a search that could return many analyses.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the matching rule front-loaded. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with a single fully-documented parameter the input side is covered. The only shortfall is the absence of any contrast with list_analyses for an agent choosing between browsing and searching.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the parameter with an example, so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding matching semantics the schema omits: matching is case-insensitive and partial rather than exact.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (QuickSight analyses) with the matching mode (name, case-insensitive partial). It is distinguishable by resource from search_datasets and search_dashboards, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_analyses, which is the closest alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the partial-match framing tells the agent this is the tool to reach for when it has a name fragment rather than a full identifier. It never states when to prefer this over list_analyses or what happens on no match, so there is no explicit routing guidance.

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