search_passes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that results are 'ordered by creation date,' which is beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention behavior for no matches, pagination, or limits. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action and criteria, and the second sentence gives the use case and return behavior. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, return ordering, and the required parameters are documented in the schema. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty results) or pagination, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters already documented (templateId as 'Template ID to search within' and searchQuery as 'Email address or phone number to search for'). The description essentially restates these facts ('within a template' and 'by email or phone number') without adding new semantic detail. It meets the baseline but adds no value beyond the schema.

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') with a clear resource ('passes within a template') and the search criteria ('by email or phone number'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_passes or get_pass by specifying the search mechanism, and explicitly mentions finding a specific customer's pass. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this when you need to find a specific customer's pass.' This implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It could be improved by naming alternatives (e.g., list_passes for browsing all passes), but the context given is sufficient for most agents.

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