bos_order_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it performs a search, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing allowed input types explicitly), it remains efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the output format, error conditions, and any behavioral traits. With richer sibling tools, more context would help an agent select appropriately.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'q' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates partially by indicating that the query can be an invoice number or customer name, adding semantic meaning. However, it does not specify format, length limits, or whether partial/fuzzy matching is supported.

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' and the resource 'orders', and specifies the search criteria 'by invoice number or customer name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bos_order_list which lists all orders, and bos_customer_orders which is scoped to a customer. However, it could be more explicit about the scope and return 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative order-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether this tool can combine multiple search terms or if it supports partial matches.

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