autotask_search_service_bundles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination details beyond the 'pageSize' parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of 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 ('Search for service bundles') and adds a brief qualifier ('with optional filters'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential information.

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 the complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'service bundle' is in this context, the expected return format (e.g., list of objects, paginated results), error handling, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns structured data, the lack of output schema means the description should compensate more, which it fails to do.

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 three parameters ('searchTerm', 'isActive', 'pageSize') with clear descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond mentioning 'optional filters', which is redundant with the schema's optional parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('service bundles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_service_bundle' (singular retrieval) by specifying search functionality with filters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'autotask_search_services' or 'autotask_search_products' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'autotask_get_service_bundle' (for specific retrieval) or other search tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites, context requirements, or typical use cases. The phrase 'with optional filters' hints at flexibility but offers no decision criteria.

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