tdx-group-search

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 'Search TDX groups' but gives no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'maxResults' parameter), return format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential function.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of groups with specific fields), behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a search operation in a context with many similar tools, more detail is needed.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (searchText, isActive, hasAppId, maxResults) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as search syntax or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search TDX groups' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'tdx-group-search'. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'TDX groups', but lacks any detail about what kind of search this is or what distinguishes it from other search tools like 'tdx-group-get' (which presumably retrieves a specific group). It doesn't differentiate from siblings beyond the obvious resource focus.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'tdx-group-get' (likely for retrieving specific groups) and other search tools (e.g., 'tdx-people-search'), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for broad filtering, exact matching, or when to prefer it over other search methods. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.

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