reai_search_v10v11

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search/retrieval nature and what fields are returned (report codes, names, modules, statuses, FSM paths). However, it doesn't describe edge-case behavior like empty results, fuzzy matching semantics, or whether it returns partial matches on multi-token queries.

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 tight sentences plus useful database-scale context (967+ mappings). Zero filler, front-loaded purpose in the opening clause.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, purpose, scale, and usage context. Slightly lean on behavioral detail (fuzzy threshold semantics, result sorting) but adequate for a straightforward search tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters well. The description adds modest value by framing results ('report codes, names, modules, statuses'), but doesn't add syntax/format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Search the V10-V11 mapping database for S3/Lawson to FSM report migration paths.' Distinguishes from siblings — reai_v10v11_stats and reai_v10v11_modules are clearly different (stats vs module listing vs search). The scope (S3/Lawson→FSM migration) is explicitly stated.

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?

States when to use ('Use this to find how legacy S3/Lawson reports map to FSM'), gives concrete query examples, and notes the database scale (967+ mappings across 20+ modules). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives like stats/modules, but sibling differentiation is clear enough from the sibling names and purpose statement.

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