boond_quotations_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, how the query is matched, result ordering, response shape, or any other operational traits. This is a minimal disclosure and leaves too much unspecified.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A useful description could still be brief while explaining criteria behavior or pointing to a sibling alternative. As written, it omits critical guidance and is closer to a label than a tool definition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by clarifying search behavior and criteria semantics. It does not. The agent is left to infer what 'criteria' means, whether the query is free-text or structured, and what the returned data looks like. This is incomplete even for a simple search tool.

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 does not compensate. It only says 'by criteria' without defining the query parameter, how page and limit behave, or what kinds of criteria are accepted. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Search quotations'. It tells an agent this tool searches the quotations domain, which is a useful distinction from get/create/update tools. However, it does not explain what 'criteria' means or differentiate it from sibling search tools in any substantive way.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_quotations_get or other search tools. It does not state when a search is appropriate, when it is not, or mention any exclusions. The only implied usage is the verb 'search', but no explicit use cases are provided.

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