boond_expenses_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose what is returned, whether results are paginated, how filters combine, or whether any side effects exist. For a no-annotation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the key filter dimensions front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices critical contextual details that other dimensions require.

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 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, return format, filter combination semantics, and any guidance on when to use get versus search, leaving agents without enough information to call it effectively.

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 only paraphrases three filters already visible in the schema (resourceId, startDate/endDate, status). It adds no detail on page/limit semantics, date-time format, enum values, or what 'resource' means, providing minimal value beyond the property 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('expense reports'), and the main filter dimensions (resource, date range, status). It is distinguishable from sibling boond_expenses_get as a search/list operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the get tool or other search tools.

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 instead of boond_expenses_get or when filters are appropriate. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name and schema.

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