search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it discloses prefix anchoring, case sensitivity, restriction to indexed plaintext fields, recipient identifier masking, account scoping, and the PROOF_API_KEY prerequisite. It does not describe result grouping, pagination, or error behavior, but the key operational traits are present.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose and key constraints come first, followed by a clearly separated access prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description covers invocation-critical context: account scoping, access requirements, matching behavior, and identifier masking. It doesn't specify the return shape or how results are grouped across buckets, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how 'q' behaves beyond the schema: case-sensitive prefix matching over indexed plaintext fields only, with masked recipient identifiers. It also reinforces the meaning of the six 'type' buckets. Limit and environment semantics remain adequately described by the schema.

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 explicitly names the operation ('Prefix-anchored global account search') and the exact resource scope: six named buckets. It also adds distinguishing constraints like case-sensitive matching, masked recipient identifiers, and account scoping, which clearly separates it from the many resource-specific get/list siblings.

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 phrase 'global account search across six resource buckets' signals that this tool is for cross-bucket lookup, while the schema's 'type' parameter describes narrowing to a single bucket. The access note and the explicit 'start_login does NOT open this tool' provide important operational guidance, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X'.

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