qbo_items_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of LIKE matching on Name, which is a valuable detail. However, it doesn't mention other relevant behaviors like pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether only active items are searched. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and matching mode. No filler or 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?

For a straightforward search tool, the description plus schema covers the essential parameters and matching logic. It lacks any mention of return value shape or default behavior beyond maxResults, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the schema's thorough parameter descriptions.

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 each parameter already described in the schema (term with LIKE '%term%', maxResults default/max, startPosition). The description's 'LIKE match' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the term parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (Search), the resource (Item records), and the specific method (by Name with LIKE match). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbo_items_list (listing all) and qbo_items_get (retrieving by ID).

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 the use case (searching Items by partial name match) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as listing all items or fetching by ID. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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