bbb_scamtracker_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals that the data is credential-free public BBB data, that results are paginated at 10 per page, and that omitting filters returns a most-recent-first feed. It stops short of describing the response payload shape or exact ordering when filters are applied, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 four sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by covering filters/pagination, browse behavior, authentication, and dataset differentiation.

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 9-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers search dimensions, pagination, no-filter browsing, credential requirements, and dataset identity. Minor gaps remain around result item contents and sort order when filters are active, but the description is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already documented including format, pairing constraints, and defaults. The description adds a high-level summary of filter dimensions but no new syntactic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search Better Business Bureau Scam Tracker reports,' a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the search dimensions (free-text, category, state, date range, dollar loss). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the bbb-search/bbb-business/bbb-business-complaints business-rating family, making it easy to tell apart from siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative BBB business-rating family and states the boundary: 'consumer-reported scam incidents, not business ratings.' It also provides concrete guidance on omit-all-filters behavior plus filter combination notes already present in the schema, so an agent knows when and how to invoke this tool.

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