Search Endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that results are 'top matching' and 'ranked by relevance', which informs the agent that not all matches are returned. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (implied by search but not explicit), error handling, pagination, or the number of results returned. This partial disclosure earns a mid-range score.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrases. The primary purpose is stated immediately, followed by a concise note on behavior and a directive for next steps. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, all documented in schema) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, what it returns (top matches), and how to proceed. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or result count limits, but these are minor for a search tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structures. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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%, meaning every parameter (app, query, method) already has a description in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; it merely implies that query can match name, path, or description, which is already implied by the parameter description. No additional semantic value is added, so the baseline of 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 (Search), a clear resource (UniFi API endpoints), and the search dimensions (name, path, method, description). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints (which likely lists all) and get_endpoint (which fetches one by slug) by framing this as a relevance-ranked 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 provides a clear workflow: search first, then use the returned slug with get_endpoint for full details. This implies when to use this tool (when you need to find an endpoint) and what to do next, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_endpoints or state conditions when search would be inappropriate. Some guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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