Advanced Device Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about automatic org scoping and the query structure beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes examples, and ends with guidance. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy. Well-structured and 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 complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description covers the main parameter and usage context. However, it omits pagination details for `page` parameter, leaving a minor gap. Otherwise comprehensive.

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 coverage, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the `query` parameter with a concrete example and structure. It also mentions `limit` sets page size, but does not detail `page` or `output_format`. Overall, it adds significant meaning.

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 executes an advanced device search using a structured query language. It provides specific examples like 'find all Windows devices not seen in 30 days' and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the unique query format.

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 for complex queries and directs the agent to supporting tools like `get_searchable_fields` and `device_search_typeahead` for constructing valid queries. This provides clear guidance on usage and alternatives.

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