search_sql_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it does not return full SQL text and mentions the return structure (SQLIDs with sql_type and market). It does not mention safety or side effects, but the tool appears read-only. Some behavioral context is given, but not exhaustive.

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 moderately concise with a structured format (Args, Returns, Example). However, it could be shorter without losing clarity. The front-loaded sentence states the main purpose well.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, one optional) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (list with sql_type and market) and provides an example. It references a sibling tool for extended functionality, making it contextually complete.

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 search_term with examples (e.g., 'PS_JOB', 'ABSV_REQUEST') and explains limit with its default value (50). An example call is provided. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 SQL object IDs whose text contains a given term. It uses specific verbs and resources ('search for SQL object IDs') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_sql_definition' by noting it does not return full SQL text.

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 explicitly states it is useful for discovering which SQL objects reference a table, field, or other identifier. It also contrasts with get_sql_definition for full text. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or broader alternatives.

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