Buildium Search Endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered and the description isn't responsible for it. The description adds useful scope detail (462 operations, searched fields) but doesn't disclose behavior like limit truncation, pagination, or result ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 reflects the modest behavioral value added.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, usage guidance, and compact parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy — efficiently structured within four short lines.

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 search tool with a read-only annotation profile and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, and two of three parameters. The omission of limit behavior and result-count semantics is the main gap, but given the output schema handles return values, this is nearly complete for agent 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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for documenting parameters. It does explain query ('natural keywords, e.g. "work orders", "lease transactions", "gl accounts"') and method ('optionally restrict to get/post/put/patch/delete'), adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the 'limit' parameter (integer, default 25) is never mentioned — a genuine gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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+resource ('Find Buildium API endpoints by keyword') and details the search scope ('paths, summaries, tags, and operation IDs across all 462 operations'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it's the discovery tool used when you don't know the exact path, contrasting with buildium_describe_endpoint.

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Start here when you don't already know the exact path' signals the tool's role in the discovery workflow and implies the alternative (describe_endpoint) when the path is known. It doesn't name the alternative explicitly, but the directional guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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