search_tools

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: it does not invoke the action, output schemas are not returned, results are paginated one page at a time, and the caller's OAuth token is required. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, so it falls short of the top of the scale.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the sibling disambiguation. Each sentence carries distinct information (scope, routing, non-execution, auth/response-shape caveat), though the phrasing is clipped enough that the response-shape sentence reads as a loose trailing note.

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 no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: it says output schemas are not returned, points to connector API docs for response shape, notes the OAuth requirement, and the schema fully documents all seven parameters. Nothing essential to a correct invocation 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 100%, so every parameter (query, summary, pageSize, connector, pageToken, identifier, environmentId) is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only obliquely reinforces pagination ('one page at a time') and auth requirements for custom connectors, without adding parameter syntax or semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Search actions exposed by connectors in one environment, one page at a time.' It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling search_connectors ('Use search_connectors to find the connector itself'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule to the alternative tool (search_connectors) and clarifies that this tool does not execute the action, which is a strong disambiguation. It stops short of stating when-not to use it beyond that single alternative (e.g. no guidance on query vs connector-only searching).

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