searchTable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is exact, case-sensitive, and limited to string fields, which is key behavioral info. However, it omits return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences total; the first states the core function, the second clarifies limitations and unsupported cases. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded.

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 covers purpose, limitations, and parameter usage adequately. It doesn't need to explain return values since there's no output schema, but it could mention behavior for missing results or defaults.

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 covers all 4 params with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by instructing 'use fields to control which' and restricting to string fields, providing extra semantics 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?

Description uses 'Search' with specific verb+resource: 'Search for records by exact, case-sensitive matches on string fields.' It clearly distinguishes from full-text search by explicitly stating 'This is not full-text search.' This sets it apart from sibling tools like query or queryTable.

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?

Provides clear context: use for exact, case-sensitive matches, and explicitly excludes unsupported case-insensitive or partial matching. It doesn't name alternative tools but clarifies the boundary with 'BaseQL does not support it directly,' giving enough guidance for an agent.

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