search_salutations

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not explain how the search behaves, what the request body does, whether it supports full-text or structured search, or any side effects. Annotations include openWorldHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description neither contradicts nor enriches these signals.

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 not in a way that is efficient—it simply restates the tool name without providing useful information. The one-word phrase does not earn its place, as every piece of content is redundant with the tool's name and title.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits any explanation of return values, pagination behavior, how the body parameter affects search results, or how it differs from listing. The sparse schema descriptions for limit/offset help, but the body requirement is left entirely ambiguous.

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%, with 'limit' and 'offset' well-described. The 'body' parameter is vaguely described as 'Request body as defined by the bexio API', which is not very informative. Since the schema already covers parameters, the description's lack of additional parameter detail is acceptable, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 salutations' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'search_salutations', offering no additional meaning. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings such as 'list_salutations' or 'get_salutation', which is a critical gap given the many salutation-related tools available.

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 like 'list_salutations' or other search tools. No context is provided on typical use cases, prerequisites, or criteria for when searching is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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