nifi_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, but with annotations present the bar is lower and the description doesn't contradict them.

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 tight sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. But the query syntax/limits and the verbose toggle are unexplained in the description, leaving the 0% parameter coverage unmitigated for a search tool whose match semantics matter.

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 description adds one useful semantic beyond the schema: the query can match by name OR id, which the raw schema does not state. However, it says nothing about the verbose flag or the format/syntax of the search string, so it only partially compensates for the low schema description coverage.

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 specific verb (search) and enumerates the resource types (processors, groups, other components) plus the keying (name or id). It distinguishes itself from the get_* siblings by being a search rather than a fetch, though it doesn't name an alternative 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like nifi_get_processor, nifi_get_flow, and nifi_list_processor_types, an agent must infer on its own when to search versus fetch or list. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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