find_records

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the filter is client-side, every field must match exactly, and fuzzy/partial/amount-only matching is not supported. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded and compact, covering purpose, mechanism, filter shape, and matching restriction in a few sentences. There is slight redundancy between 'every field must match exactly' and 'Never does fuzzy/partial/amount-only matching,' but 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?

The description adequately covers the critical exact-match semantics and client-side nature. With an output schema present and rich annotations, return values and safety behavior need not be repeated, though resource and max_pages remain weakly explained.

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. It explains the filters object format well, but resource and max_pages receive no semantic explanation, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 that this tool performs an exact-match structured filter over a collection, including the filters shape and the client-side mechanism. It distinguishes itself from fuzzy or partial matching but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_records or get_record.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool applies (exact field-value matching) and an explicit exclusion (never fuzzy, partial, or amount-only matching). However, it does not name an alternative tool to use when fuzzy matching or other query types are needed.

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