get-search-index-by-name

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not specify whether the response includes full details or a summary, whether deleted indices are included by default, or any authentication or rate-limit requirements. The 'include', 'fields', and 'extractFields' parameters suggest filtering, but their effects are not described in the tool description.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks structure and is so minimal that it may be under-specified. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose but does not organize information for quick scanning.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, default behavior (e.g., whether non-deleted is the default), and how parameters affect results. The tool has four parameters with potential filtering nuances, and the description does not address these, leaving significant gaps.

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 75% (3 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; for instance, the 'include' parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Search Index') and includes qualifier 'by fully qualified name', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list-search-indexes' and other 'get-X-by-name' tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as 'list-search-indexes' or other get tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a fully qualified name format) or exclusions (e.g., 'this tool is for single entity retrieval only').

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