boond_businessunits_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation but never explicitly states that it has no side effects, nor does it mention result format, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond the verb 'Search'.

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, short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is concise but sacrifices useful detail that an agent needs. While every word earns its place, the overall structure is too minimal for a 3-parameter tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'criteria' means, how 'query' interacts with the search, or how pagination works. The agent has almost no information to invoke the tool correctly beyond the schema.

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. It only vaguely references 'name or criteria', which maps weakly to the 'query' parameter, but provides no explanation of 'page' or 'limit'. The description adds little meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 a verb ('Search'), a resource ('business units'), and a qualifier ('by name or criteria'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'boond_businessunits_get' by implying a list/search operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get' or 'create'. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent must infer the intended usage from the name and description alone.

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