search_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavior disclosure itself. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, and it discloses the matching mode and result fields. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or discuss pagination/auth, but for a simple search tool these are minor gaps.

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 tight sentences: the first gives purpose and output, the second packs the parameter constraints. No filler or repetition.

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 a simple search operation and an available output schema, the description covers the match mode, output fields, and all parameter bounds. It omits only optional guidance about when to prefer siblings, which is unnecessary since none of them search accounts.

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?

The structural schema only provides a generic 'arguments' wrapper, so the description compensates by fully documenting query (name fragment, length 1–80) and limit (default 10, max 25). This is substantial semantic value beyond what the input schema provides.

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 ('Find'), a resource ('customer accounts'), the matching mode ('partial name'), and the returned fields (id, segment, city, owner). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling deal/ticket/pipeline tools, none of which search accounts.

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 gives clear context: use when looking up accounts by a name fragment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings are account-search tools, so the risk of mis-selection is low.

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