search_records

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it returns matching records with types and descriptions, but omits details like pagination, case sensitivity, fuzzy matching, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a search tool with potential large result sets.

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 compact: a clear purpose statement, followed by parameter explanations and return type. No extraneous information.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description covers inputs and basic output structure. However, it omits important usage context like pagination behavior, case sensitivity, and error handling, which reduces 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?

Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining that search_term is a partial match and record_type values map to specific record types (Table, View, etc.). This adds essential semantic context.

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 tool searches for PeopleSoft records by name or description, using a specific verb and resource. Siblings with similar names (e.g., search_employees) target different entities, so the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for searching records by name/description but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_record_definition or list_tables.

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