search_accounts

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects. The annotations themselves are ambiguous (readOnlyHint=false for a search operation), but the description neither clarifies nor contradicts them.

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?

At only two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It does not constitute a meaningful sentence and fails to convey any useful information, making it ineffective even though it is short.

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?

This is a search tool with a complex 'body' parameter and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about search capabilities, return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Sibling tools like search_contacts and search_orders have similarly terse descriptions, but given the opaque API-specific body parameter, the description is entirely inadequate.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (body, limit, offset) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning about how to construct the body or interpret the search criteria, leaving the opaque 'body' parameter without practical clarification.

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 'Search Accounts' is a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what accounts are searched, what the search entails, or how it differs from related tools like list_accounts or search_additional_addresses. It is a tautology that fails to distinguish the tool from its siblings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_accounts, other search tools, or any context for when a search is appropriate. There is no implied usage because the description is entirely generic.

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