search_work_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and no destructive action. The description adds behavioral context that unfiltered searches may return large result sets (via the date-range advice), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, no filler. The first states the purpose, the second gives a clear actionable optimization tip. Every word 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?

With 7 optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain the query parameter, pagination fields, or boolean filters (work_pool, current_technician). The presence of an output schema helps, but selection and correct usage of the tool remain under-specified.

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 the burden. It only elaborates on start_date and end_date (including format and purpose), while ignoring query, page, per_page, work_pool, and current_technician. Parameter names hint at meaning, but the description adds no actual semantics for the majority.

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 the tool searches work orders/service appointments, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'get_work_order' (single record) and 'list_calendar_work_orders' (calendar view) via the search term.

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?

It advises using start_date and end_date to keep results small, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_work_order or search_invoices, nor any exclusions.

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