erpnext_link_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'readable' qualifier, indicating results respect the user's read permissions, and 'Link field candidates' clarifies the output as selectable options. This is useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Search') and the object ('readable ERPNext Link field candidates'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 core purpose is clear, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema is present to describe return values. However, the description gives no parameter semantics and no guidance on selecting this tool over siblings, which is a notable gap for a four-parameter tool. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for confident usage without further inference.

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%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters. While 'doctype', 'text', and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'filters' is ambiguous and no parameter is described in relation to how the search behaves. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('readable ERPNext Link field candidates') with concrete examples (Customer, Item, Account, Warehouse, or Supplier). It clearly conveys the tool's unique purpose within the sibling set, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like erpnext_doc_list or erpnext_doctype_schema.

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 phrase 'Link field candidates' implies this tool is used when an agent needs to find valid values for a Link field in ERPNext, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. Usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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