instructions_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It claims 'filter' support, but the input schema contains no filter parameter, making the description misleading. It also does not disclose result shape, pagination defaults, ordering behavior, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise sentence and is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting essential details, so it reads more like an under-specified label than a helpful tool definition.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of context and it is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'Instructions' includes, what filters are supported, how pagination behaves, or what the response looks like. Among numerous sibling search tools, this description is not sufficient for correct selection or invocation.

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 needed to explain the parameters but does not. It mentions sort and pagination, which maps loosely to 'sort', 'start', and 'pageSize', but it does not explain the meaning of 'property', 'direction', 'start', or 'pageSize'. It also references a 'filter' capability that has no corresponding parameter in the schema.

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 a specific operation ('Search') and resource ('Instructions') and mentions sort/pagination, which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it is ambiguous whether 'Instructions' includes scheduled or persistent instructions, especially with sibling tools named scheduled_instructions_search and persistent_instructions_search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools such as scheduled_instructions_search, persistent_instructions_search, instruction_definitions_search, or consumers_search. The phrase 'filter/sort/pagination' implies general search behavior, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints are provided.

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