Search devices

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: the scoring threshold that silently drops zero-score devices, and that a WebSocket failure yields an empty list rather than an error — a real gotcha an agent must know to interpret empty results.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the algorithm, then use/not-use, then return shape and limits as labeled blocks. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the schema or title.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps — ranking semantics, result fields, truncation, and failure behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already carried by the schema and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining how the two parameters interact — query is scored against every registry device, matches above 0 are kept, and limit truncates the descending-score list.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource (fuzzy-rank devices) and immediately specifies the exact fields that are matched (name, name_by_user, manufacturer, model). This is enough to tell it apart from the plain-list siblings like devices_list_devices or areas_list_devices.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause names the triggering condition (no known device id, want a ranked guess from a name fragment) and an explicit 'Not for' clause routes the agent to three named alternatives for exact/unranked listing. Nothing is left to inference.

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