raynet_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the lack of sorting, the fixed ascending-by-id ordering, and pointing to newest_first as the alternative. This gives the agent meaningful operational expectations beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the important sorting caveat, then gives a direct actionable alternative. 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 absence of an output schema, the description still provides enough context for a correct call: the operation, paging, filtering, full-text search, and ordering behavior. It does not describe the return shape or count semantics, but for a search tool the core invocation guidance is largely complete.

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 description largely paraphrases what the schema already documents for filters, offset, and fulltext, and does not add meaning for limit or entity beyond the schema's enum/default. Since schema description coverage is moderate (67%), the summary adds some top-level orientation but does not substantially compensate for gaps.

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 verb and resource ('Searches for records in Raynet CRM') and enumerates key capabilities (field filters, paging, full-text search). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like raynet_get_record or raynet_full_scan, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool by listing its search capabilities and gives parameter-level guidance ('Use newest_first...'), but it never explicitly states when to choose this over a sibling or when not to use it. Usage context is present but alternatives are not addressed.

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