fusion_search_columns

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it runs a registered report with specific bind values, orders results by table row-count statistics, applies no row cap internally so limit is enforced here, and reports 'truncated' honestly. It also explains that datasource is ignored on the report path, which is valuable non-obvious 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 front-loaded with a crisp one-line purpose and then progresses through report behavior, ordering, limit handling, and per-argument details. It is somewhat verbose in the ordering explanation with examples like 'interface, history and staging namesakes', but that detail is informative rather than filler. Overall it earns its length.

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, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete for invocation. It explains every parameter, the report execution path, the ordering heuristic, and the limit/truncation semantics. No critical operational detail needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does this thoroughly: pattern is defined as a SQL LIKE pattern with an example, owner is explained as optional with a report default, table_pattern is described as an optional LIKE restriction, limit is defined as the maximum rows returned, and datasource is disclosed as a legacy fallback that is ignored on the report path. This goes well beyond the raw 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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Find which tables carry a column' and positions it as 'the fastest answer to where does X live?'. This is a concrete verb+resource statement. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling fusion_docs_search_columns, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need to locate which tables contain a column, framed as the fastest answer. It also gives practical usage context such as LIKE patterns and the limit behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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