search_business_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Cherwell AND/OR filter-combination semantics, paging support, and the default-all-fields return behavior, but says nothing about permissions, result-size implications, or the shape of returned results. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the most error-prone detail (filter combination semantics). No filler, though the parenthetical '(Cherwell semantics)' is mildly redundant.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers query construction and field selection but omits the returned result structure (e.g., whether total counts or paging metadata come back). The gaps are moderate rather than severe since the query semantics, the trickiest part, are covered.

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 60%, and the description compensates well: it explains the AND/OR semantics of the filters array, which the schema does not convey, and notes that the fields list defaults to all fields. pageSize/pageNumber behavior is left to the schema, which documents defaults and bounds.

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 object records with field filters. This differentiates it from the CRUD siblings (get/create/update/delete_business_object), though it does not name an alternative explicitly. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its filter semantics (OR within a field, AND across fields), which tells the agent how to build a query, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_business_object_summaries or get_business_object. No when-not or exclusion guidance is given.

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