search_records

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it specifies what fields are matched, that the query is free-text, and that the result is a set of record ids. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, especially since there is no output schema.

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 redundant wording. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive search tool with idempotency annotations, the description covers the core behavior and return value sufficiently. Minor details like pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior are absent, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents the query parameter as a 'free-text search term'. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the term is matched against title, owner, and tags, which clarifies how the parameter is interpreted beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('record store'), and further clarifies the scope by naming the matched fields (title, owner, tags) and the output (matching record ids). This clearly distinguishes search_records from siblings like fetch_record and delete_record, which imply direct record retrieval or mutation.

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 makes clear this tool is for free-text, field-matching search across records. It gives enough context for an agent to select it for search-style queries, though it does not explicitly contrast it with fetch_record or other alternatives.

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