search_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the match is a case-insensitive substring search across three specific fields, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence that states purpose and scope immediately. The Args block is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, but it adds the substring/case-insensitivity detail, so little is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: purpose, matched fields, and matching semantics are all covered. Minor gaps (result limits or ordering) are excuseable given the output schema handles return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the keyword parameter, and it does: it defines it as free-text and specifies case-insensitive substring matching. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema type.

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 (search) and resource (accounts), and narrows scope by naming the matched fields (name, industry, account owner). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_accounts, the closest sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the search matches but gives no guidance on when to use it versus list_accounts or get_account, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'keyword'.

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