search_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that filter fields match by equality and that results are scoped by a visibility policy—both non-obvious behaviors. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation. This is good but not complete, as it omits potential details like pagination or result shape.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three short sentences that each add value: purpose, filter behavior, and visibility scoping. No redundant or fluff content appears.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what is searched, how filters work, and a crucial session-scoping detail. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the tool name and typical search semantics make these less critical. Given the low complexity of the parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate. The statement 'All filter fields are optional and match by equality' adds meaningful behavior about how parameters work. However, it does not explain the semantics of individual fields beyond their names, leaving the agent to infer meaning. This is adequate but not thorough.

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's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Search Order objects'. The parenthetical 'A sales order, unified across both legacy systems' adds valuable context that distinguishes it from other order-related tools like get_order. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search/get tools. There is no mention of alternatives like get_order for fetching a single order, or any scenario-based recommendations. The only usage-related information is that filters are optional and equality-based, which is more about parameter behavior than usage context.

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