Search business partners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered without the description's help. The description adds real value in disclosing the matching rule (substring contained in CardCode OR CardName), which is behavior beyond the annotations. It does not disclose result ordering, case sensitivity, or whether inactive/frozen partners are included, which matter for a search 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary matching rule and followed by the optional refinement — no filler. It is perhaps too terse for a tool with four parameters, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

The tool is simple and fully read-only, and annotations plus the schema cover the safety profile and most parameters, so the bar is modest. Still missing for correct invocation: behavior with an empty or omitted query (return everything capped at limit?), case sensitivity, and result ordering — all relevant to a free-text search over a large partner master.

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 coverage is 75% and the description reinforces the query semantics ('contains') and defines the purpose of the type filter, whose enum values carry no description in the schema. It adds little for limit and fields, but those are already self-describing in the schema, so the description complements rather than duplicates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search business partners') plus the exact match semantics (substring on CardCode or CardName) and an optional type filter. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_business_partner (exact single-record lookup), but it never names the sibling or draws the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for partial-text/exact-prefix lookup, and the 'optionally filter by type' clause hints at narrowing. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_business_partner, what happens with an empty query, or how to page beyond the limit, so the agent must infer the boundary conditions.

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