ise_ers_search

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. The description explains that it uses ERS filter and sort expressions, which is meaningful behavioral info about query semantics. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (page/size defaults exist in schema), what happens when filter syntax is invalid, whether results span deployments, or return format expectations. Moderate transparency.

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 a single crisp sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the two key syntaxes (filter and sort expressions). Every word earns its place with concrete examples deferred to the schema. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a generic search with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core search/filter/sort semantics but omits return format, pagination behavior, and interplay with deployment scoping. There are numerous sibling per-resource search tools that could serve as alternatives, but the description doesn't clarify when the generic version is preferred. Adequate for a common pattern but leaves gaps on return values and pagination defaults.

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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions: size, sort, filter, resource, deployment all have descriptions actually — page lacks one and sort/filter have short ones). The description adds the key semantic value by explaining the filter/sort expression format ('field.OP.value' and '+field'/'-field'), which the schema examples reinforce. The resource param description already points to ise_ers_resources. The description doesn't add meaning for page or deployment beyond schema. Adequate but does not exceed schema coverage meaningfully.

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 it searches/filters ERS objects using ERS filter expressions and sort expressions. It specifies the verb (search/filter), resource (ERS objects), and the expression format. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ise_ers_list or ise_ers_search_* per-resource tools, though the generic nature is implied.

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 explains the filter and sort expression syntax explicitly with examples, which is helpful usage context. However, it doesn't state when to use this generic search vs. the many per-resource search tools (ise_ers_search_endpoint, ise_ers_search_sgt, etc.), nor does it mention the resource parameter pointing to ise_ers_resources for guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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