search_contact_relations

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on implications such as required permissions, pagination, or side effects.

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 extremely short, but it under-specifies the tool's purpose and usage. A single tautological sentence does not earn its place; it provides no value beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of a search API with a body parameter, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a search operation entails, the structure of the request body, or the shape of the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The limit, offset, and order_by parameters are well documented in the schema, but the required 'body' parameter is vaguely described as 'Request body as defined by the bexio API,' and the description adds no further clarity.

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 contact relations' is a tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without adding any scope or differentiation. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_contact_relations' or 'get_contact_relation'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain how 'search' differs from 'list' or what kind of queries the body parameter supports.

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