invoiceninja_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that results are id-focused, which helps, but does not disclose result grouping (despite the 'Max matches per group' param) or that no output schema exists for richer framing. Adequate with annotations carrying the load.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resources, then the routing guidance. No filler; every clause 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?

For a three-parameter, read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and output kind (ids). It could mention that results are grouped by record type (implied by 'per group') or result-count behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 query, limit, and response_format including defaults, bounds, and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb (find) and enumerates the resources (clients, client contacts, invoices, projects) plus the fields searched (name, email, number), and states the output (their ids). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like invoiceninja_list_clients or invoiceninja_get_invoice, which enumerate rather than search across record types.

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?

Explicitly directs usage: 'Start here when the user mentions a record by name.' This gives a clear trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool over the many list_* and get_* siblings when the user provides only a name/email/number.

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