accounting_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool performs parallel searching across four tracks and merges results, which is a key behavioral trait. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or address side effects, search operations are inherently non-destructive, and the disclosure of the parallel/merge behavior adds value beyond what schema provides.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and behavior, the second gives clear guidance for alternatives. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, all with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and directs the agent to individual tools for deeper exploration. It lacks details on the exact return format, but this is not critical for a search aggregator and is appropriately left to the individual tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions the query is applied to all four tracks, which echoes the schema's parameter description. No additional syntax, format, or nuanced behavior is covered.

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 clearly states the tool is the 'primary entry point' for accounting question search, with a specific verb ('search') and resource (4 tracks combined). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the individual search tools by listing them and explaining it searches all four in parallel and merges results.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('primary entry point') and when-not-to-use: it tells the agent to call individual tools (search_standards/search_qna/search_audit_case/search_sanction/get_paragraph/get_qna/get_audit_case/get_sanction) for deeper or more detailed queries. This is direct and actionable.

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