find_operation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful context: it searches a corpus of 405 operations broader than the exposed toolset, and names the payload fields (name, route, summary, arguments). It doesn't mention result ordering or truncation behavior, but the added search-space context is genuine value beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return fields and the handoff to run_operation, then a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; minor redundancy in restating 'Args:' beneath already-named fields.

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 two-param search tool with an output schema covering return values, this is complete: purpose, scope, return fields, next-step tool, and both params are addressed. The only omission is any note on result ranking or limits interaction, which is minor.

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 must carry the load, and it does: query is defined as free-text words describing the goal with three concrete example queries, and limit is explained as match count. This is stronger than the schema, which gives no per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Plex API operations), with the scope clarified as 'all 405... including those not exposed as tools.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling run_operation, which executes rather than searches.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here, then 'Run one with run_operation.' The scope note ('including those not exposed as tools') tells the agent this is the discovery path for operations otherwise unreachable. No explicit when-not guidance, but the search-vs-execute split is clear.

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