Search Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it supports 'complex queries across all object properties' and provides a filter example, which gives useful context about query capabilities beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example filter is helpful and relevant. However, the second sentence about 'complex queries across all object properties' could be integrated more smoothly, and there's some redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 search tool with rich annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output format details (no output schema provided), doesn't explain error cases or result structure, and misses sibling differentiation. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for these 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (filter, sort, limit) with descriptions. The description provides an example filter format, which adds some practical context beyond the schema's generic description, but doesn't explain sort syntax or limit constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 tokenized objects with filter criteria and supports complex queries across all object properties. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'tokenized objects' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'dual_public_search_objects' or list tools like 'dual_list_objects'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_list_objects' (which might list without filtering) or 'dual_public_search_objects' (which might be for public access). No context about prerequisites, access levels, or appropriate use cases is provided.

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