search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions multi-entity search but omits details like pagination, result limits, case sensitivity, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise with a clear first sentence defining the purpose, followed by structured parameter explanations in a docstring style. It avoids unnecessary fluff but could be slightly more compact.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search scope. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., full-text, case sensitivity, pagination) which are common expectations for a search tool. This makes it minimally complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'query' is explained as 'The search keyword or phrase' and 'models' as 'Optional filter for entity types' with examples. This significantly helps an agent understand how to populate the parameters.

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 it searches across Metabase entities (cards, dashboards, collections, tables) by keyword. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards or get_card, which are specific entity retrieval operations.

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 implies usage for general keyword search across multiple entity types but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., for filtering or ordering results.

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