search_reminders

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or what the operation does beyond the word 'Search'. It does not contradict the annotations but also does not disclose anything helpful.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the essential purpose. It could be slightly more detailed, but it is appropriately short and clear, earning a strong score.

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 2-parameter tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what the search returns, how the body parameter works with invoice_id, or what search criteria are supported. The description is too minimal to be contextually complete for an implementation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already documented (invoice_id as 'the id of the invoice' and body as 'Request body as defined by the bexio API'). The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 invoice reminders' states a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool's core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_invoice_reminders or get_invoice_reminder, which also deal with invoice reminders, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_invoice_reminders or search_invoices. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or the appropriate use case, leaving the agent without direction.

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