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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reveals the underlying API endpoint (GET /api/devices?search=<q>), the default pagination values (per_page=25, max 200, page=1), and the required permission ('devices'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence definition, a usage-routing sentence, a pagination/permission line, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the API equivalent, pagination defaults, permission requirement, and an example. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return shape, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a thin wrapper over a list endpoint, this is a small omission rather than a critical one.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (q, page, per_page) with types and defaults. The description adds a little extra meaning by explaining q as a substring match against label or ip_address and by restating pagination defaults, but it doesn't significantly go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find devices') and resource ('matching a substring of label or ip_address'), and explicitly distinguishes it from device_list by calling it a convenience wrapper for a one-arg shortcut. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling device_list.

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 explicitly says when to use device_find ('the one-arg shortcut for does anything look like X?') and when to use device_list instead ('when you need tag/status filters or relation includes'). It also provides a concrete example, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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