Search Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'resolve view IDs' purpose, which gives insight into the return value, but doesn't describe additional behavioral traits such as result format or limits. This is similar to the get_calls calibration example, where annotations handle safety and the description adds modest context.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences, with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. Every piece of information ('search by title,' 'resolve IDs,' 'use before view_get/chart_list') is directly useful to the agent.

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, read-only search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit return format details, but 'resolve view IDs' gives a clear hint, and the schema fills in parameter behavior. The usage guidance makes it reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, providing clear descriptions for all three parameters (key_word, view_scope, project_key) including examples and usage tips. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('views by title') with the purpose of resolving view IDs. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly recommending it before view_get or chart_list when only a view name is known.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this before view_get or chart_list when the user only knows a view name.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and for what purpose, effectively differentiating it from alternatives. The project_key schema description also adds practical guidance for multi-project scenarios.

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