Search services

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by revealing that it wraps Services.search, explains search_fields behavior, and states the return format ('compact service records with client_id'), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Three focused sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by the wrapper context and return shape. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, scope, searchable fields, wrapper behavior, and return format. It does not detail pagination behavior or the exact contents of compact records, but the annotations and schema provide sufficient safety and defaults for correct invocation.

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 75%, and the description enriches the query and search_fields parameters with concrete examples such as domain, hostname, username, package name, and service number. The full and page parameters remain only schema-documented, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema overall.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find services across all clients by domain, hostname, username, package name or service number.' The phrase 'across all clients' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_client_services, and the service focus distinguishes it from search_clients.

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 broad cross-client search but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_client_services or other alternatives. There are no direct exclusionary guidelines or named sibling alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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