ghl_object_search_records

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the POST method and OAuth scopes (objects/record.readonly), but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 main purpose and uses line breaks for readability. However, it includes a documentation link and endpoint details that, while useful, add length. Still efficient with little wasted text.

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?

The description lacks any mention of the return value or output format, which is critical given no output schema. It does not clarify pagination behavior or response structure. This gap reduces completeness for a search tool.

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% (all properties have descriptions, albeit minimal like 'Page'). The description lists the parameters but adds no new semantic meaning or examples beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly state 'Search Object Records' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling create/update/delete operations by noting that the body is fully specified in OpenAPI, and mentions supported objects like custom objects and 'business'.

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for searching records and that the body parameters are fully specified, unlike sibling ops. It includes OAuth scopes and endpoint, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling reference.

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