find_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains unit handling ('comparisons are against the DISPLAY value in project units' with an example), the behavior of 'empty' operators, the meaning of 'matched' when the limit caps results, and that values return in project units. This goes well beyond basic read/write hints.

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 well-structured with an opening summary and an Args block. Every sentence adds value: the 'Prefer this' line is actionable, and parameter details are concise but complete. No fluff or redundancy.

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's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: filtering logic, unit conversions, return behavior (include_params), limit behavior, and true match count. It gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, even without a formal output schema.

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 all parameter meaning must come from the description. It explains every parameter: category (with localized name support), level, operator (enumerating valid values and special semantics for empty/not_empty), value (unit conversion note), include_params, and limit (default and matched field). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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: 'Find elements of a category, optionally filtered by level and by a parameter value, and return the parameters you ask for in the same call.' It uses a specific verb ('find'), names the resource ('elements'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_elements and get_element_properties.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over calling get_elements and then get_element_properties per element.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, and outlines optional filters (level, parameter) that define its scope.

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