sumo_qa_find_test_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing result ranking dimensions (confidence, freshness, suitability) and pagination via the response's next_offset. It stops short of saying whether an empty result is possible, how ranking ties break, or whether the catalogue is pre-populated.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core intent is front-loaded before the narrowing and pagination details. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Pagination and the narrowing filters are covered, and referencing 'the response's next_offset' usefully compensates for the absent output schema. But with 8 parameters at 25% coverage, an agent still cannot tell what sku/domain/product_id/environment filter on, which is a substantive gap for a search tool whose whole job is filtering.

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?

Only 25% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, so the description has to compensate and only partly does: scenario_tags, known_valid_for, offset and limit behaviour are addressed. The four filter parameters sku, domain, product_id and environment are never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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, returning ranked matches with confidence, freshness and suitability. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling sumo_qa_finding_test_data, so an agent must guess which of the two to call.

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 parenthetical 'find me test data for X' gives a clear implied trigger, and 'scenario_tags and known_valid_for narrow it' explains how to refine a query. But there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. finding_test_data, load_catalogue_entry), which matters given the crowding of siblings in this namespace.

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