search_configurations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read, but the description doesn't state pagination behavior, result limits, whether it returns matching configs with full details, or note that it aggregates across organizations. The schema's page_size/page_number hint at pagination but the description itself adds nothing beyond the title.

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 (single clause) but under-specified. It's concise in the sense of brevity, yet for a 10-parameter search tool this brevity represents under-specification rather than earned conciseness. Every word is useful, but there's insufficient content overall.

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?

This is a search tool with 10 parameters and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what the response contains, how to combine filters, whether all filters are ANDed, or the relationship with get_configuration. For a tool this configurable with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is significantly under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting; no semantic gaps exist that the description needs to fill.

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 'Search for configurations (devices/assets) in IT Glue' with a clear verb+resource+context. It's differentiated from siblings like search_organizations and search_passwords by the specific resource type, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its close sibling get_configuration (which retrieves a single record vs searching).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_configuration would retrieve a single specific configuration, or clarify that this is a list/search operation. Sibling get_configuration exists but no differentiation or exclusions are given.

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