sumo_qa_find_test_data

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reads only the local YAML catalogue (no external lookups) and explains pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by return value details, scope limitations, optional filters, pagination instructions, and example phrasings. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, return structure (ranked matches with confidence, freshness, suitability reasons), pagination fields, and typical use cases. It lacks detailed return field descriptions but is reasonably complete given the complexity and absence of an output schema.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the purpose of `scenario_tags` and `known_valid_for` to narrow the search, and describing `offset` and `limit` for pagination. However, parameters like `environment`, `domain`, `product_id`, and `sku` are not mentioned, leaving gaps.

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 states clearly that the tool searches the local known-good test data catalogue for scenario matches. It specifies scope ('local YAML catalogue') and differentiates from external lookups, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'sumo_qa_finding_test_data', which may serve a similar purpose.

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 provides good context on when to use the tool, such as narrowing search with optional tags and labels. It also includes pagination information and common natural-language phrasings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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