Search Public Objects

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'No authentication required', which clarifies access requirements not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.). It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it could mention more behavioral traits like rate limits or result format, it provides useful operational context that enhances transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word earns its place by stating the purpose and key usage condition, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (search with filtering), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the public access aspect well, but could improve by hinting at result types or limitations, though annotations help mitigate gaps, making it nearly sufficient.

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?

The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'filter' and 'limit'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional details like filter syntax or usage examples.

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's purpose as 'Search publicly accessible objects' with the verb 'search' and resource 'publicly accessible objects', making it specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_list_objects', which likely have different access requirements or scopes, preventing a perfect score.

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 with 'No authentication required', indicating when to use this tool versus authenticated alternatives. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or named alternatives (e.g., 'dual_search_objects' for authenticated searches), so it doesn't fully meet the criteria for a score of 5.

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