autotask_search_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by pageSize but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'search' entails (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for services') and includes essential qualifiers ('with optional filters'). Every word earns its place.

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 potential complexity (filtering, pagination), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for an AI agent to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 fully documents all three parameters (searchTerm, isActive, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capability, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('services') with scope ('with optional filters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like 'autotask_search_companies' or 'autotask_search_products' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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. With many sibling search tools available (e.g., autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_products), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific service search tool.

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