search_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states incremental filtering via searchOnInput, that there is no clean value read-back, that a search reports no row count so it is refresh-only with no poll-until-stable, and that list_refresh records the refresh method. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. It stops short of 5 only because it never addresses auth/permission or failure-mode behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action, and headings (CURRENCY, Returns) aid scanning. But it is heavily padded with low-value implementation detail — hex byte layout ('e0 41 81 81 b7 <char-count><utf-16le><space pad>') and buffer-machinery narration — that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Several sentences do not earn their place for the invocation decision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still lists the response keys. Combined with the refresh semantics, read-back limitation, and near-complete parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly. It is close to complete for a no-annotation mutation-ish tool, lacking only explicit auth/prerequisite context.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains value (the search string), search_field (the SearchStringAddition element), capture (the genuine setup replay that typed captured_value), captured_value (the seed typed into the search box), and refresh (force requery vs opt out). Only host/port are left unaddressed, but those are obvious connection defaults, so the behavioral meaning of the search-relevant parameters is covered.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Filter a dynamic list by a SEARCH STRING natively,' then clarifies it types into the search-string addition and filters incrementally. It even contrasts itself against the shared machinery of set_reference_field, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling. It does not, however, explicitly compare against the other search-like sibling (advanced_search), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is present but implied: the CURRENCY section explains when refresh defaults on/off and why, and it notes that confirmation must be done via capture_screenshot. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of advanced_search/choose_from_list when...' routing, and no prerequisites section. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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