Search dispositions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'Read-only' suffix is redundant. The description adds context about what records are included (firearms leaving inventory) and filter categories, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or consequences of the open-world hint. This is marginal added value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. No word is wasted; the filter list and read-only note each add distinct value. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview of filter categories but leaves out details like pagination via skip/take, specific parameter semantics, and return structure. It is a sufficient summary for a search tool but not fully complete for an agent to invoke with all possible filters.

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 description lists filter categories (type, TTSN/OTSN, PO/invoice/tracking, recipient contact, item) that map to several parameters, but it does not explain all 16 parameters. With only 19% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by providing category-level meaning, but it omits parameters like isManufacturingDisposition and include4473.

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 it searches disposition records and specifically enumerates the types (sales, FFL transfers, theft/loss, destroyed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_disposition or list_disposition_items. The verb 'search' combined with the resource and filter categories provides a clear, specific purpose.

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 usage: it is for finding/filtering disposition records, and the 'Read-only' note signals it is safe to call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools and the focus on search/filter makes the intended use clear.

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