box_search_tool

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. While it mentions the tool searches for files, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, how results are paginated, or what happens with large result sets. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 reasonably structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, it includes formatting issues (e.g., 'DESCRIPTION,' with a trailing comma) and could be more front-loaded. The parameter documentation is thorough but somewhat verbose given the simple parameters. It earns its place but isn't 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. With no annotations and basic search functionality, it should provide more operational context about how the search works and its limitations.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully documents all 4 parameters with meaningful explanations: 'query' purpose, 'file_extensions' format example, 'content_types' with enum values and description, and 'ancestor_folder_ids' purpose. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Search for files in Box with the given query.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('files in Box'), and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'box_search_folder_by_name_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', which would require a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other search tools), there's no indication of when this general file search is appropriate versus more specialized searches. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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