autotask_search_configuration_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a search operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (beyond the pageSize parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with no results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation with 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what configuration items are, what the search returns, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('configuration items in Autotask'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other search tools in the sibling list (like autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_tickets, etc.), missing specific differentiation about what makes configuration item search unique.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools available, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other search functions (e.g., when to search configuration items vs. companies).

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