isw_transaction_search_quick_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states basic search functionality. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no results are found.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and date format. There is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not cover the 'extra' parameter, response format, or any behavioral details. The complexity of the tool demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 description adds meaning by naming amountKobo, terminal, and date range, and specifying the date format. However, it does not explain the 'extra' object parameter, and the schema uses 'terminalId' while description says 'terminal', which may cause confusion. With 0% schema coverage, the description 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 the tool searches transactions by amountKobo, terminal, and date range, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by reference or do other operations. The date format is also specified. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from the other search tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the other search tools like isw_transaction_search_reference_search or isw_transaction_search_bulk_search. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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