search_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('search and read') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema implies with limit/offset), error handling, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. However, an output schema exists (per context signals), which may cover return values, partially mitigating the need for output details in the description. This results in a minimal but not fully adequate level of completeness.

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%, meaning parameter titles like 'Model', 'Domain', and 'Fields' are not explained in the schema. The description adds no semantic context for these parameters—it doesn't clarify what a 'model' refers to in Odoo, what format 'domain' expects, or how 'fields' should be specified. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the action ('search and read records') and the resource ('from any Odoo model'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'search_count', which likely have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_record' (likely for single records), 'search_count' (likely for counting), and 'read_group' (likely for aggregated reads), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this search-and-read operation.

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