boond_contracts_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 only states that the tool searches contracts, but omits details such as whether it returns a list, how pagination works, whether authentication is required, or how the 'query' parameter behaves (exact match, fuzzy search, etc.). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 succinct sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant terms,efficiently conveying the core purpose. Its brevity, however, borders on underspecification, keeping it from a 5.

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 three optional parametersable and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not clarify what 'resource' and 'type' refer to in the context of contracts, nor does it explain the query syntax. An agent would be left guessing about how to effectively call the tool beyond passing arbitrary text. The presence of many sibling search tools also warrants more differentiation, which is absent.

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 for all three parameters. It vaguely hints at query semantics ('by resource, type, or other criteria') but does not explain how to format the query or what valid values for 'resource' or 'type' are. The page and limit parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving their semantics entirely to inference from their names.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('contracts'), and hints at search dimensions ('resource, type, or other criteria'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling 'get' operations by saying 'Search' rather than 'Get'. However, the meaning of 'resource' in the context of contracts is ambiguous, preventing a 5.

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 alternatives. It does not mention boond_contracts_get for fetching a single contract by ID, nor does it indicate any conditions that would make this search the preferred option. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search', with no explicit context or exclusions.

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