boond_invoices_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any pagination or filtering behavior. 'Search' implies a non-mutating read, but this is implicit and not explicitly stated.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It provides no useful information that earns its place — it essentially repeats the tool name and adds 'by criteria'. It lacks the substantive content needed to justify its brevity.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings with identical search patterns), the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what criteria are accepted, expected return structure, or any constraints. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.

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% — none of the three parameters (page, limit, query) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess what 'query' should contain or how pagination is applied. This is a critical gap for a tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented.

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 ('invoices'), but it is generic and does not differentiate from any of the many sibling search tools (e.g., boond_candidates_search, boond_contracts_search). The phrase 'by criteria' is vague and adds little specificity beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. With dozens of sibling search tools, the description provides no exclusions, alternatives, or context that would help an agent select the right one. It simply states what it does without any situational nuance.

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