search_purchases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing beyond 'Search' — it does not state that the operation is read-only, note pagination/sorting behavior, or mention any auth/permission requirements. Filtering dimensions are the only added context.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it stops short of adding any information the schema does not already contain.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate the shape of results (a paginated list of purchase records) and how the sort/pagination parameters interact. It covers the input filtering surface adequately but leaves the output and read-only nature implicit.

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 all nine parameters (page, dateTo, search, status, dateFrom, pageSize, vendorId, sortColumn, sortDirection) are already documented in the schema. The description only summarizes the filter set at a high level, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (purchases/expenses) plus the filter dimensions supported, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as search_bills or search_payments, which is the main gap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for overlapping needs (search_bills, search_payments, get_purchase). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and filter list.

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