sumo_qa_find_test_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: local-YAML-only scope, no external lookups, ranked results with confidence/freshness/suitability reasons, and full pagination semantics (offset, total_count, has_more, next_offset).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, pagination, and routing examples; every block serves a function. The natural-language phrasing list is somewhat long but is directly useful for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes return fields and pagination, which closes a major gap. It remains incomplete for a 0-required, 8-parameter tool because half the filter parameters go unexplained, leaving selection and invocation partly guesswork.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains offset/pagination and repeats the narrowing role of scenario_tags and known_valid_for, but sku, domain, product_id, environment, and limit are never mentioned in either place — an agent cannot infer how those filters behave.

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 ("Search the local known-good test data catalogue") plus its scope boundary ("Reads the local YAML catalogue under `knowledge/test_data/` only; no external lookups"), which separates it from catalogue-loading and external-skill siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Provides explicit trigger phrasings ("find me test data for X", "do we have a known-good record for X") that give strong context for routing. It does not, however, name when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with near-siblings such as sumo_qa_finding_test_data or sumo_qa_validate_test_data.

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