find_matters

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions OData query capabilities and provides examples, adding value beyond the schema. However, it lacks disclosure of pagination behavior (top/skip), rate limits, or auth needs, which are important for a search tool.

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 relatively concise (two sentences with examples) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing key parameter explanations that would improve usability.

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 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It covers only a subset of parameters and omits critical context like pagination (top/skip), filtering by status or IDs, and behavior when no results are found. An output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 only 3 of 9 parameters (orderby, filter, select) and gives examples, but fails to document top, skip, status, account_id, practice_area_id, and responsible_attorney_id. This is insufficient for the schema's richness.

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 'Search matters (cases)', which is a specific verb+resource pair. The name 'find_matters' and mention of 'Search' differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_matter' (retrieve single) and other find_* tools for different entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_matter' or 'create_matter'. It only describes the functionality, leaving usage context implied but not guided.

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