consumers_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the permission requirement and that the tool is read-oriented ('Search', 'Requires Read'). Yet it does not describe the response shape, default pagination behavior, or whether all listed fields are equally valid for both filtering and sorting, which would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: one front-loaded sentence states the core purpose, followed by a compact list of capabilities and the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a search tool: it defines the resource, lists usable fields, and states the required permission. However, because there is no output schema and no explicit comparison to sibling search/list tools, an agent may still be uncertain about the return format and the exact circumstances in which 'consumers_search' is preferable to 'consumers_list'.

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 input schema already covers most parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly naming the valid filterable/sortable fields: Name, Enabled, MaximumSimultaneousInstructions, OffloadTargetUrl, and SystemConsumer. This supplements the schema's generic OData filter example and helps an agent construct valid queries.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Consumers.' It also lists the exact filterable/sortable fields, which clarifies the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'consumers_list' tool, relying on the word 'Search' to imply the distinction.

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 when to use this tool: when searching consumers with filtering, sorting, or pagination. It also notes the required 'Read' permission. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer 'consumers_list' or other consumer-related search/get tools, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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