pipedrive_organizations_search

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavior. It only mentions search fields (name, address, custom fields) but does not disclose pagination cursor behavior, exact match effects, or whether other parameters modify search. Missing critical traits like read-only nature and pagination limits.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded with key details without becoming wordy, so it is not efficient communication.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return format, pagination, search behavior, or how parameters interact. A more complete description is warranted.

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 description coverage is only 17%, with only term having a description. The tool description adds vague context about search fields but fails to clarify the meaning of fields, exact_match, cursor, limit, or include_fields. Parameter semantics are largely undocumented.

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 it searches organizations by name, address, or custom fields, distinguishing it from other search tools focused on different resources like persons or deals. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the separate list tools for organizations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use search versus list, nor on how to combine parameters like term and fields. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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