search_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it scans full tables (performance implications), default result limits beyond what the schema states, or connection requirements. The schema supplies parameter defaults, but overall behavioral context is thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the intent. Efficient with little waste, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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 read-oriented search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits return format (does it return matching rows, counts, locations?), performance expectations, and any caveats about scanning all tables. Parameter-side completeness is fine thanks to the 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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, including defaults for caseSensitive and maxResultsPerTable. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (search) and resource scope (across tables and text columns), and the second sentence clarifies the intent: locating where data lives. It is distinguishable from siblings like run_query and list_tables, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implies usage via 'finding where specific data lives,' giving a use case, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. run_query, no exclusions, and no stated limitations (e.g., performance, read-only). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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