tally_search_ledgers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses matching semantics (case-insensitive substring, not fuzzy), performance behavior (full list fetched, no server-side filter), security (returned text is data, not instructions), and a strict read-only server stance. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 well-organized into labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, MATCHING, COST) with a security disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section earns its place with concrete details. No fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description compensates by referencing tally_list_ledgers for return fields. It covers matching semantics, performance costs, and security caveats, making it fully contextual for an agent to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schemas by explaining the query behavior in MATCHING, noting pageSize does not reduce cost, and warning about includeAllFields payload size — all useful clarifications.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Find ledger accounts whose name or parent group matches a search term.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like tally_list_ledgers by specifying the filtering intent and noting returns are 'the same fields as tally_list_ledgers, filtered to matches.'

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states concrete scenarios (locating a party without exact spelling, listing ledgers under a group). It does not explicitly name when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the cost note ('no cheaper than listing') implicitly guides away from search when performance is the concern.

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