fm_find_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches records but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what happens with no matches, or any rate limits. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'record' in this context, how results are returned, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent lacks crucial context about this tool's behavior and integration within the FileMaker ecosystem.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the query array structure, layout significance, or how sort/limit/offset interact. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose as '検索条件に一致するレコードを検索します' (searches for records matching search criteria), which is clear but generic. It specifies the verb (search) and resource (records), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like fm_get_records or fm_global_search_data, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific search tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that also retrieve records (fm_get_records, fm_get_record_by_id, fm_global_search_data), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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