search_budget_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a high burden. It offers a useful domain example, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or any side effects. The example adds some behavioral context but leaves important details unstated.

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 concise, with two clear sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a concrete domain example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover the return format, default behavior, and edge cases. It covers the domain parameter well, but it does not describe what the tool returns or how the limit parameter affects results. This leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The example domain clarifies the structure of the domain parameter as a list of [field, operator, value] triples, which is valuable. However, the limit parameter is not explained beyond its schema default, so it partially compensates.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Search BOQ lines across any budget/project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_invoices and search_journal_entries by targeting BOQ lines specifically. The example domain reinforces the 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 clear context on what the tool does (searches BOQ lines across budgets/projects) and gives a domain example, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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