search_directory_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a search, implying it is read-only and safe, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it uses a POST method. More detail would be needed for full transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and a parenthetical endpoint. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 7 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the primary use case. It lacks detail on default behavior when no parameters are supplied, but overall is adequate for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It mentions the overall purpose but does not clarify which parameters are most relevant for the stated use case.

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 tool searches directory lines (electronic invoice receiving addresses) and explicitly mentions the use case: verifying a recipient's registered line and Approved Platform before sending an invoice. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, or delete directory lines.

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 explicitly says 'Call before sending an invoice to verify the recipient has a registered line and to identify their Approved Platform,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools, though the context implies usage for verification.

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