search_in_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching lines with surrounding context, which is useful. However, it omits details like case sensitivity, search pattern semantics (exact vs. substring), and behavior when no matches are found. This is a moderate level of transparency for a read-like search tool.

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 that is direct and front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to provide enough context. It states the core purpose but doesn't explain how optional filters (type, owner, childObject, environment) narrow the search, nor does it describe the output structure beyond 'matching lines with context.' The schema covers parameter details, but the description could offer more cohesive guidance for this multi-parameter search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'surrounding context' aligns with the contextLines parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('company setting'), and mentions returning matching lines with context. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_company_settings and get_company_setting, which have different purposes (listing vs. retrieving full settings).

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 implies the tool is used when you need to find specific text within a setting's value, which is a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives, such as get_company_setting for full retrieval. The sibling names provide context, but no exclusions are stated.

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