search-pricebookSearches active customer-facing services and materials in the authenticated workspace without exposing internal cost or markup fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Service or material. | |
| limit | No | Maximum items to return. | |
| query | No | Pricebook item name or description. | |
| active | No | Filter by active state; defaults to true. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: internal cost and markup fields are deliberately not exposed. This is useful beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the data-access boundary.
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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key boundary condition without unnecessary words.
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 optional-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and safe read-only annotations, the description provides the essential scope and data-exposure boundary. It does not mention return behavior or pagination, but those are not critical given the schema's limit parameter and the absence of an output schema.
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 are already documented with their own descriptions and constraints. The description adds general context like 'active' and 'customer-facing' but does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and identifies the exact resource: active customer-facing services and materials in the authenticated workspace. It also adds a distinguishing boundary by stating internal cost and markup fields are not exposed, which separates it from other search tools.
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 clear context that this is for searching customer-facing pricebook items in the authenticated workspace, implying it is appropriate for external/customer-facing use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough for most selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.