search_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the limit is capped at 200 and lists return fields. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied. Overall, good transparency for a search tool.

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 three sentences plus a bullet list of return fields. It is front-loaded with purpose and efficient, though the bullet list could be integrated into prose. No redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all parameters and return fields, and mentions the limit cap. It lacks details on error handling, pagination (though limit is given), or ordering, but is reasonably complete for a simple search.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: keyword as substring match, object_types as optional filter, owner as schema filter, and limit with max cap. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 it searches ALL_OBJECTS in Oracle Fusion/ERP Cloud by object name pattern, specifying the verb (search), resource (ALL_OBJECTS), and system. It distinguishes from siblings like search_tables, search_columns, etc., which have narrower scope.

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 explains keyword matching (case-insensitive, substring) and optional filters (object_types, owner, limit). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like search_tables or search_source, leaving the agent to infer context.

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