Search acquisitions

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

The description repeats the annotation-provided read-only nature and adds the 'intake events' framing, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination defaults, or whether filters combine. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the lack of contradiction keeps this at a mid score.

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 sentences front-load the resource and action, then compactly list filter categories. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation but not verbose enough to hurt; the entire description is appropriately sized.

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 14-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not state whether filters combine with AND/OR, what the response contains, or how pagination behaves beyond the schema's skip/take descriptions. It is sufficient to choose the tool but not fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 21%, so the description must compensate; it does group many parameters into useful categories (PO/invoice/tracking, supplier contact, item, manufacturing). However, it omits some parameters such as id, externalId, and account, and it does not map the categories to exact parameter names, leaving gaps in guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search acquisition records (intake events)' and enumerates the filter dimensions (type, PO/invoice/tracking number, supplier contact, item, manufacturing flag). This separates it from sibling search tools such as search_items and search_dispositions by naming the acquisition/intake domain.

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 filter list implies the tool is appropriate when looking up acquisitions by purchase-order, invoice, tracking, supplier-contact, or item criteria, but it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives. There is no explicit tool-selection guidance such as 'for disposition records, use search_dispositions'.

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