search_quotes

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 safe, what side effects might occur, or any important constraints. The annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which is ambiguous for a search tool, and the description fails to clarify this.

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 'Search quotes' — extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly tautological, which the rubric treats as under-specification rather than good conciseness. It lacks any structural elements like examples or clarifications.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and annotations that don't clarify behavior, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search filters are, what the response looks like, or how the body parameter should be structured. This makes the tool hard to use correctly without external API knowledge.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds nothing about the parameters, and the 'body' parameter remains vague ('Request body as defined by the bexio API'), but since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate much.

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 states the action 'Search' on the resource 'quotes', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_quotes' tool, so it isn't fully differentiating but remains clear in its core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'list_quotes' or how it differs from other quote-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate usage contexts.

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