persistent_instructions_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It doesn't state whether the search is read-only, whether cancelled or pending persistent instructions are included, default sort ordering, pagination limits, or what the result set contains. The mention of 'filter' without a corresponding schema parameter is also mildly misleading.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler words. It earns its place and is easy to scan. It is short to the point of under-specification, but as a structural matter it is appropriately compact and well-ordered.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly: available sort fields, pagination semantics, whether filters are supported at all, and what the response contains. The description does not fill the gaps left by the sparse schema and absent annotations.

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 must compensate, but it barely does. It confirms pagination and sorting map to start/pageSize and sort, but doesn't explain what sort values are accepted, what start represents, pageSize limits, or default behavior when parameters are omitted. Worse, it advertises 'filter' while no filter parameter exists in the schema, creating ambiguity about how filtering is supposed to be expressed.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Persistent Instructions'), clearly distinguishing it from persistent_instructions_get_by_id (single fetch) and persistent_instructions_create/cancel/delete (mutations). The 'filter/sort/pagination' qualifier adds scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from instructions_search or scheduled_instructions_search, and 'filter' is mentioned even though no filter parameter exists in 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when an agent should choose this over persistent_instructions_get_by_id, instructions_search, or approvals_get_pending_persistent_instructions, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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