splunk_search_async

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the key behavioral fact: the job runs in the background and no results are returned, only a SID. That is genuinely useful. It omits what an agent would also want for a job-creating write-like operation: permission requirements, job lifetime/expiry, concurrency or resource limits, and how the SID is subsequently consumed.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the four-line Args block is pure duplication of schema titles and consumes roughly half the text for zero informational gain. Appropriately short overall, but with wasted content.

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 values needn't be explained and the description correctly just says a Job SID comes back. The gaps are in usage routing and parameter formats rather than return semantics. For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, though, more should be said about time-bound syntax.

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 compensate, and it does not: the Args block merely restates parameter names ("earliest_time: Earliest time bound") with no accepted formats (relative like -24h vs epoch), no max_count interaction with result pagination, and no note on whether time bounds are optional. It adds almost nothing over the bare schema titles.

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 and resource ("Initiate an asynchronous search job") plus the outcome ("return its Job SID immediately"), which distinguishes it from the synchronous splunk_search and from splunk_search_status/results. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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 asynchronous, background framing implies when this is appropriate (long-running queries) and the immediate Job SID return implies a follow-up call, but neither the alternative (splunk_search for short queries) nor the polling tool (splunk_search_status / splunk_search_results) is named. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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