searchOperations

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so the description's real contribution is the disclosure that only enabled and implemented tools surface and that results do not expand permissions. That permission-boundary note is meaningful behavioral context an agent could otherwise get wrong. It does not describe result shape or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, permission semantics, and next step. No filler and the scope constraint is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what a result looks like, how matches are ranked, or whether results are truncated by the limit. For a discovery tool whose output feeds describeOperation, that leaves a real gap, though the permission and follow-up notes cover the riskiest parts.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and it does not mention query or limit at all. An agent must guess that query is a free-text match string and that limit caps result count.

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 specific verb and resource (search Omada tools) and narrows the scope to enabled, implemented ones, which distinguishes it from the many concrete get/list siblings. It does not fully explain what an 'operation' record contains, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an implied discovery workflow by naming describeOperation as the follow-up step for inspecting a result. It never says when to search instead of calling a known sibling tool directly, or what to do when a search returns nothing.

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