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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses partial-result behavior through `skipped`, explains that syslog/eventlog use unindexed substring scans that may time out, and notes server-side tag-scope permission filtering. This gives the agent a realistic model of failure and partial success without contradicting 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 dense but efficient: the core purpose is front-loaded, the parameter list is compact, and the behavioral caveats are organized logically. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the example earns its place by showing realistic usage.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape ({total, samples}), the `skipped` mechanism, authentication/tag-scope behavior, and the timeout fallback. For a tool with four parameters, five stream types, and no structured return schema, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds operational meaning: `per_stream` caps samples while `total` remains complete, `hours` affects timeout risk on unindexed scans, and `streams` controls fan-out. The concrete example also demonstrates how the parameters combine, going well beyond the 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Find every mention of a specific IP across Netmon's log and telemetry streams,' then enumerates the five concrete streams. This distinguishes search_ip from the many single-stream siblings like syslog_search, eve_search, and netflow_search.

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 tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: if high-volume syslog/eventlog scans time out, it directs users to narrow `hours` or use syslog_search/eventlog_search with a device_id. It also explains how to narrow the fan-out with the `streams` parameter, giving clear selection guidance.

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