search_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that context can enable archived record search ({active_test: false}) or language-specific display names ({lang: 'fr_FR'}), returns [{id, display_name}] with a limit. This is solid behavioral transparency.

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 four sentences, each concise and informative. It front-loads the purpose, then adds parameter details, context examples, and return format without waste.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main parameters and return shape. Missing details like error conditions or pagination beyond limit, but it's sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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 compensates by explaining query (free-text), domain (Odoo domain syntax), action_id (scope), and context (with examples). Only 'model' is not described, but it's likely obvious as it's the record type.

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 starts with 'Search for records by name or domain', which clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (records). It differentiates from siblings like list_records (which likely lists without search) and get_record (single record).

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 explains multiple search modes (query, domain, action_id, context) and provides examples for context usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use search_records over list_records, the purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate use.

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