boond_resources_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search resources', which implies a read operation, but it does not explain pagination behavior, response format, filtering semantics, or any operational limits. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, 'or other criteria' is vague and could be more specific without much length.

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 simple search tool with only three parameters, the description plus schema is minimally adequate: an agent can infer calling it with a query and pagination parameters. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out response shape and the full set of searchable fields, making it only marginally complete.

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 does add meaning to the 'query' parameter by indicating name/email/other criteria, but it says nothing about page and limit behavior or the expected query format. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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') and resource ('resources'), and names the primary search criteria (name, email, or other criteria). This distinguishes it from boond_resources_get, though 'other criteria' is vague and many sibling search tools follow the same pattern.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_resources_get or other object-specific search tools. The 'Search resources' phrasing only implies usage; it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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