find_records

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: filters are AND-combined, and withdrawn records are excluded by default unless include_withdrawn is set. That default-exclusion semantics cannot be inferred from the schema alone. It stops short of stating that the call is read-only or whether result sets are bounded, but the core filtering behavior is well surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers filter axes first and behavioral caveats second, with no filler. Minor ambiguity in the 'or' phrasing for what are actually AND-combined filters, though the parenthetical immediately corrects it.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the filtering semantics are covered. Still, with no annotations and a required, undocumented 'path' argument, the definition does not give an agent everything needed to invoke it confidently.

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, and it does explain five of six parameters in domain terms: claim_id, key ('source key'), text ('text in the claim'), missing_evidence ('contestable records lacking evidence'), and include_withdrawn. The required parameter 'path' is never explained, which is a notable gap because it is the only mandatory argument.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (find records) and enumerates the four filter axes: claim_id, source key, claim text, and missing-evidence records. It is clearly a filtered list operation, distinguishing it implicitly from get_record (single fetch) and add_record/withdraw_record (mutations), but it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(all filters combine)' tells the agent that filters are conjunctive rather than exclusive, which is genuinely useful selection guidance, and the withdrawn-records clause sets a default. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_record or summarize_ledger, and no prerequisites are given, so usage is only implied.

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