Search acquisitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only' without adding further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or potential performance implications. It does add minor context by describing acquisitions as 'intake events', but this does not significantly improve transparency beyond structured fields.

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 three short sentences: purpose, filters, read-only note. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 13 parameters and no output schema. The description provides a basic overview of what the tool does and what filters exist, but lacks information about return format, pagination defaults, and nuanced ID semantics. For a search tool with many filters, it is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps for the agent to fill.

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 only 15% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps filter categories (type, PO/invoice/tracking number, supplier contact, item, manufacturing flag) to several parameters, but it does not disambiguate between ID types (e.g., externalId vs itemExternalId vs acquiredFromContactExternalId) or clarify allowed values for 'type'. It adds partial value but leaves many parameter-specific details unresolved.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('acquisition records (intake events)') and lists filter dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_acquisition (single-record retrieval) and search_dispositions/search_items (other resources). It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool (searching acquisition records) and what filters are available. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_acquisition for a single record) or state when not to use it, missing the top-tier 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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