find_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: an IP query also returns the declared ranges containing it (subnets, gateway on-prem ranges, P2S pools), which tells the agent the result set is broader than a single-node match.

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 identifier forms are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the kind taxonomy and the IP-expansion note. The kind list is long but every entry is load-bearing as an allowed filter value; structure is clean with no filler prose.

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 carries return-value duty and partially does so by explaining IP-expansion behavior. Query, kind and the matching modes are covered; only the limit/count semantics are absent, leaving a small gap for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so for two of three params: it defines query's accepted identifier forms and essentially enumerates kind's allowed values. The third param, limit (default 20), is never mentioned, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb ('find') and resource ('nodes') and enumerates the three identifier types the query accepts (full resource id, IP, exact/partial name). It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like get_node, which also looks up nodes, so the agent must infer the find-vs-fetch distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for locating a node when you have an identifier of some kind. The long kind filter list conveys intended scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_node or scan_infrastructure, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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