search_accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions 'FREE' and that records are 'already saved', but omits authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results. Significant gaps remain.

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 (one sentence plus 'FREE.'), which is efficient, but it lacks structure and important details. It front-loads the purpose but fails to elaborate beyond that.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, sorting, filtering, or response format, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 only 40% (q_keywords and sort_by_field have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for the other three parameters (sort_ascending, page, per_page), no guidance is provided. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 for 'accounts' in Apollo CRM, specifying it's for saved company records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts or search_organizations by focusing on a specific resource type. The mention of 'FREE' adds a notable trait.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_organizations or search_contacts. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context hinders selection.

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