Search custom object records

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations: it does not mention pagination behavior via skip/limit, the need for schemaKey, the nature of the text query, or what response shape to expect.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and important behavioral details; the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must carry more explanatory weight, but it does not. It lacks mention of required schemaKey, pagination semantics, query matching behavior, or how this search differs from other search/list tools, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 only 40%, with query and locationId documented in the schema but skip, limit, and schemaKey left undocumented. The description adds minimal value by saying 'text query,' which overlaps with the schema's already-present 'Free-text search' description. It does not explain the required schemaKey parameter or the pagination parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('records of a custom object'), and the mechanism ('by a text query'). It is understandable on its own and distinguishable from direct-fetch siblings like ghl_get_object_record, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_get_object_record, ghl_list_object_schemas, or ghl_search_contacts. The description implies it is for text-based search but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when direct retrieval is more appropriate.

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