bc_search_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the profile-scoped nature of Tell Me, the empty-result behavior with a 'note' field, that runTarget is an AL name rather than a numeric ID, and the need to map the AL name to a page ID for opening. It also specifies the exact return object structure. This is rich, honest disclosure that goes beyond any structured metadata.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage boundaries, environment caveat, result format, empty-result handling, and examples. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers essential context. No fluff or repetition; the length is justified by the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full lifecycle: what it does, when to use it, how the environment affects it, the structure of results, the empty-result note, and a concrete example. There are no significant gaps left for an agent to guess about.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'query' parameter with a clear description and examples, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by showing concrete query-to-result examples (e.g., 'customer' returns 'Customer List') and explaining how the query maps to the search behavior, thereby enriching the parameter semantics slightly beyond the schema. This justifies a 4.

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 BC's Tell Me index for pages, reports, codeunits, and other run-targets, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it (when page ID is unknown) and when not (when ID is already known, use bc_open_page; for data reading, use other tools). The verb 'searches' plus the specific resource and scope make the purpose 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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it is for discovery when the page ID is unknown, not for opening pages with a known ID, and not for reading data. It also names alternatives (bc_open_page) and gives context about the profile-scoped Tell Me index and remediation via BC_PROFILE. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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