search_read

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: limit is 'capped by ODOO_MAX_RECORDS', omitting fields 'can be large', and domain 'Defaults to all records'. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. Some transparency, but gaps remain.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args section with each parameter on its own line. Every sentence provides useful information, no fluff. The example domain list is particularly helpful and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete: it explains all parameters, their defaults, the record cap, and the field omission caveat. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without requiring external knowledge.

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 explain parameters. It thoroughly covers all six: model with example, domain with format and example, fields with caveat, limit with cap, offset for pagination, and order with example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding significant meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Query records from an Odoo model.' This is a specific verb (query) + resource (records from an Odoo model). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling read_records, the focus on 'query' with domain filters implies search rather than direct read. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through parameter descriptions (e.g., domain for filtering, limit/offset for pagination) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like read_records. The description mentions behavior (defaults, caps) but not decision criteria. Thus, implied usage only.

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