search_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it finds objects by name or comment, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens with the limit parameter, how results are returned, or any permission/rate considerations. This is a significant behavioral gap for an unannotated search tool.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the example adds immediate value without redundancy. Perfectly sized for a search tool 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?

There is an output schema, so return format is structurally covered, but with no annotations and three parameters, the description should explain parameter interactions (e.g., does profile affect results?), how limit works, and any ordering or matching behavior. It also omits edge cases like case sensitivity or wildcard support. The agent cannot call this tool confidently without further probing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'term' via the search context, but gives no guidance on 'limit' (does it paginate? is it a max?) or 'profile' (does it filter by profile? optional?). These gaps are critical because the schema provides no descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resources (tables, columns, functions) and search criteria (name or comment). The example 'where is the customer email?' provides a concrete, memorable use case that clarifies intent and distinguishes it from generic 'search' tools.

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 example implies a usage context (schema discovery), but the description does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query, describe, or explain, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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