boond_agencies_search

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose pagination behavior, query matching semantics, result shape, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but the description leaves all behavioral disclosure to the schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though this brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the agent has almost no information about return values, filtering semantics, or pagination behavior. A one-line description is insufficient for a search tool with three parameters and no structured guidance elsewhere.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only hints that 'query' matches by name or criteria. The page and limit parameters are left entirely unexplained beyond their schema types/defaults.

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 identifies the action ('search') and resource ('agencies'), making the tool's basic purpose clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools for other resources. However, 'by name or criteria' is vague about what criteria are supported.

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 given for when to use this search rather than boond_agencies_get or the create/update tools. The word 'search' implies list/filter usage, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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