Search strings by regex

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true (safety profile), so the description adds real behavior: matching is case-insensitive, which is non-obvious and not stated in the schema, and results are paginated via offset/limit. It still omits any note on scope limits (e.g., which database/instance is searched by default) or match-count behavior at the 500 cap.

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 that names the operation, the matching mode, and the pagination model with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are covered by schema descriptions. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many other search/lookup siblings, which an agent must guess at.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, offset, pattern, instance_id) are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only restates the offset/limit pagination concept and adds no format or syntax detail for the regex itself, 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (strings) plus the mechanism (regex), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as search_text, find_bytes, or find, which leaves ambiguity about which search tool applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative search tool even though the sibling list contains find, find_bytes, and search_text. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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