ise_ers_search_ancpolicy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden for a search/mutation operation on a network security appliance. It does not disclose that search results may be paginated (though page/size params exist), any permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

Single declarative sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specifying rather than concise in the best sense—the sentence is short but doesn't carry the helpful detail the tool warrants.

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/filter tool with no output schema and only 20% schema coverage, so the description must do substantial explanatory work. It fails to explain ERS filter expression syntax, how pagination works, or how this differs from the generic ise_ers_search tool (which likely also does ERS filtering). For a network admin tool with zero annotations, this is incomplete.

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 only 20% (5 params, only deployment described). The description adds that 'filter' takes ERS filter expressions, adding some meaning. However, the critical 'filter' parameter format/syntax is not explained, and page/size/sort semantics are left entirely to schema defaults. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the low coverage gap.

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 'Search/filter ANC Policies with ERS filter expressions' uses a clear verb (Search/filter) plus resource (ANC Policies) and mechanism (ERS filter expressions). It distinguishes this from sibling list/get tools (ise_ers_list_ancpolicy, ise_ers_get_ancpolicy) by emphasizing filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 term 'filter expressions' implies the filter parameter is the key differentiator, and the deployment parameter guidance (from schema) mentions calling ise_list_deployments for choices. However, the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, and 'ERS filter expression' syntax is never explained.

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