Find resources by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds beyond annotations: case-insensitive substring match, exact-id match, default kinds (non-admin), optional tag filter, and pagination (limit, offset). No contradictions.

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 3-4 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of a full output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers search behavior, defaults, optional filters, and pagination, leaving no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining default kinds (non-admin), substring/exact-id behavior, default limit of 50, and tag as optional filter. This provides useful context not inferable from schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it searches records across resource kinds by name, with a specific use case (finding a query without listing all collections). It distinguishes from siblings like list_resource and get_resource by specifying substring/exact-id matching and default kinds.

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 clear context for when to use (search by name/tag without listing collections) and how to narrow results (kinds, tag, limit, offset). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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