qbo_customers_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the LIKE match behavior, but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, or state any permissions or side effects. The absence of such details leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and the LIKE match detail, making it optimally concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not mention return format, pagination semantics, or how maxResults and startPosition affect results. For a search tool with 3 parameters, this leaves important operational details unaddressed.

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 100% with all three parameters (term, maxResults, startPosition) already described. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the LIKE match, which is also present in the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 searches Customer records by DisplayName with LIKE matching, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbo_customers_list (listing all) and qbo_customers_get (fetching by ID), as it explicitly narrows the search behavior.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the search mechanism (DisplayName LIKE match), leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for partial-name lookups. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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