search_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: results are limited to 10 by defaultage, and the 'limit' arg adds a max of 1000. However, it does not mention whether searches are partial or exact, or any other operational behavior beyond the default limit.

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 efficient: purpose first, then a brief context note, then parameter docs. The 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' line is slightly redundant with the limit parameter description, but it is short and does not bloat the overall description.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: purpose, parameter meanings, a default limit, and maximum limit. It lacks usage guidance vis-à-vis siblings, but that gap is already reflected in the usage guidelines score.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'ip_or_hostname' is the search termeb, and 'limit' is the maximum results with default and max values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('IP addresses or hostnames in phpIPAM'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_hostname', but the scope is still specific enough for basic selection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hostname' or 'search_subnets'. The description implies usage simply by saying 'Search for...', but it never states appropriate contexts, exclusions, or recommendations.

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