search_passwords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: it returns metadata only, not actual passwords. This is valuable and prevents an agent from expecting secrets. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but for a search tool the metadata-only disclosure is the most important behavior and is clearly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core purpose appears first, and the critical boundary about metadata-only results is placed in a parenthetical that 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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters, no required parameters, a complete schema, and no output schema. The description clarifies what the return type is not (actual passwords) and that it is metadata only, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not detail which metadata fields are returned, but that is a minor gap given the lack of an 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 optional parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('password entries in IT Glue'), and adds a clear distinguishing boundary ('returns metadata only, not actual passwords'). This separates it from siblings like get_password, which likely handles password retrieval.

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 implies this tool is for searching/finding password entries and for metadata-only needs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or name a sibling tool such as get_password. The 'not actual passwords' note is an implicit exclusion rather than explicit usage guidance.

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