boond_alerts_search

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 reveals only that the tool performs a search, and omits important behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, query syntax, or whether the operation is read-only. It is not misleading, but it adds almost no behavioral insight beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short and contains no waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides only a single high-level sentence and offers no structured or progressive detail to guide an agent.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain query format, supported criteria, pagination defaults, or what the search returns. The description needs substantially more context to be 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%, and the description does not compensate. The phrase 'by criteria' vaguely points toward the query parameter but does not explain what kind of query string is expected, how page and limit operate, or how they relate to the search. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('alerts'), which is enough to identify the core operation and distinguish it from boond_alerts_get and boond_alerts_update. However, 'by criteria' is vague and does not specify what criteria are supported or how they are expressed.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention boond_alerts_get for retrieving a single alert, nor does it clarify whether this tool is appropriate for all alert searches. The intended use is only implied by the generic phrase 'Search alerts by criteria.'

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