Search integration runtime artifacts

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the 'Uses eq filter' detail, which is useful behavioral context about how filtering works. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or whether multiple filters combine with AND/OR.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the filter detail is a useful addition. It could arguably include a bit more guidance, but for its length it is 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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description is thin. An agent knows it can search by these fields but doesn't know how the eq filter behaves across multiple parameters, what the response looks like, or how this search differs from the sibling get_integration_runtime_artifacts. The readOnly annotation covers safety, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 undocumented parameters. The description lists the parameter names (ID, version, name, type, status) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema property names already convey. It doesn't explain value formats, allowed values, or how the eq filter applies to each parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('integration runtime artifacts') and lists the filterable fields (ID, version, name, type, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_integration_runtime_artifacts by implying a search/filter operation rather than a direct get, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 usage for searching/filtering artifacts, and the sibling list includes get_integration_runtime_artifacts, suggesting a get-vs-search distinction. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_integration_runtime_artifacts or other search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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