Search Boxes inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search operates on a 'local Boxes mirror', implying data may be a snapshot rather than live, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose query behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact match) or any pagination/limitations beyond what the schema's limit parameter already provides.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and contains no superfluous words. Every element earns its place.

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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description covers the 'what' (fields searched) and 'where' (local mirror), but does not explain result format, query matching behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema and no further context, an agent might need to infer how to handle responses, though the read-only nature is clear from annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifies which fields the query targets, giving meaning to the 'query' parameter. However, it does not explain query syntax (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcards) or the semantics of the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema defaults imply. It partially compensates but leaves gaps in full parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching across specific fields (names, descriptions, tags, locations, custom fields) within the local Boxes mirror. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_inventory_object (which fetches a specific object) or list_contents (which lists contents), making the search function unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose search over get_inventory_object or list_contents, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of 'local Boxes mirror' is mentioned but not framed as a usage condition.

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