Search integration flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the read-only 'Search' action. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the underlying mechanism (direct entity lookup or $filter on runtime artifacts), which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand what happens internally. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or result limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a concise technical detail. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search criteria and the method. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list vs single result), but this is common for search tools and may be implied. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete for an agent to call it correctly, though adding a note about return type would make it fully 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It mentions 'by ID, version or name', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter. However, it does not specify whether parameters are mutually exclusive, combinable, or how they interact (OR vs AND). The meaning is partially added but not fully elaborated, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' and the resource 'integration flows', and specifies the search criteria (ID, version, name). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_integration_flows (likely a direct fetch) and search_integration_runtime_artifacts (searching artifacts rather than flows). The exact-match qualifier further separates it from fuzzy searches.

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 use for exact-match lookups but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'exact match via direct entity lookup or $filter on runtime artifacts' gives some context on the approach, but it does not state when this tool should be chosen over sibling search tools. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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