boond_apps_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it supports pagination (despite page/limit parameters), what the response structure is, or any search syntax/limitations.

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 short and front-loaded, but 'or criteria' is vague and the brevity comes at the cost of essential usage detail. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is materially incomplete. It leaves the agent without enough information to construct a correct search call, interpret results, or choose between this and sibling search tools.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies 'name or criteria' relates to the query parameter but does not explain how query works, how page/limit behave, or what 'criteria' includes, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('apps'), and mentions the searchable basis ('name or criteria'). It distinguishes from get/install/uninstall operations on apps, though 'criteria' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly differentiate from every other resource-specific search sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_apps_get or other resource searches. It does not mention intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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