qbo_departments_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little beyond the read-only 'search' implication. It says nothing about result count, pagination defaults, permissions, or how results are ordered, all of which an agent would want for a search call. The only notable detail (LIKE semantics, no ESCAPE) is already repeated in the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and match mechanism come first. Nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a simple filtered-lookup tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of a perfect score because it never states the return shape (e.g., that it returns an array of Department records) or the difference from the list sibling.

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%: term, maxResults, and startPosition are all documented in the schema, including LIKE wildcard behavior and pagination defaults. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Department records) and adds the matching mechanism ('by Name (LIKE match)'), which is a meaningful scope qualifier. It does not explicitly name its closest sibling qbo_departments_list, but a searching-verb plus a required term makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 'by Name (LIKE match)' phrasing implies you should use this when you only know part of a department name, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with qbo_departments_list. Usage is left to inference from the required term parameter.

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