search_ledgers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the search action and criteria, but does not mention auth requirements, result shape, pagination, how matches are returned, whether fuzzy matching is used, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verbs and resource while fitting the main search criteria into the same sentence. There is no redundant wording or structural padding to distract from the core purpose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin for the context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It does not mention matching behavior, returned record set or its size, company scoping, or any limitations such as exact vs. partial matching. The description would be just enough if the schema and annotations were richer, but here those are absent.

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 coverage is 50% and the description largely repeats what the schema already says about search_term ('name or flat no'). It does not explain the purpose or required role of company_id, and it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the existing field description.

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 names the verb ('Search'), the resource ('ledgers/parties/members'), and the search criteria ('by name or flat number'). It differentiates the tool from sibling search tools like search_invoices, search_stocks, and search_challans by specifying this tool searches ledger/party records.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ledger_balance or get_ledger_statement. The description implies usage only from 'Search' and the resource name, but does not explain when a fuzzy name/flat search is the right choice or when a different ledger tool is preferred.

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