Byte pattern search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read. The description adds the wildcard and pagination context, but the offset/limit behavior is already documented in the schema parameters, so the added value beyond structured fields is thin. Nothing contradicts the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key capability is stated first. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the sibling landscape.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain returns or parameters. It is minimally adequate, but missing sibling differentiation and any prerequisite context (e.g. reliance on an open/current database target) given the four related search tools.

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%, covering patterns, offset, limit, and instance_id, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's mention of '??' syntax adds a small amount that overlaps with the schema example '48 8B ?? ??'. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search byte patterns') and names a distinguishing capability (?? wildcards, offset/limit pagination). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as find_regex, get_bytes, search_text, or find.

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 only describes what the tool does, not when to choose it over alternatives. With siblings like find_regex and search_text available, an agent gets no guidance on which search tool applies to which case.

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