ise_ers_search_authorizationprofile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what ERS filter expression syntax is expected, what the return format is, whether pagination applies (page/size defaults suggest yes), or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap in transparency about behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and free of waste. It could arguably be slightly more helpful, but for what it covers, it's appropriately tight.

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 5 parameters, only one of which is described in the schema, and no output schema. No annotations exist. The description does not explain the ERS filter expression syntax, pagination behavior, or the distinction from list/get variants. For a complex search tool, the description is under-specified and leaves the agent to guess about filter syntax and result semantics.

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 20%, meaning most parameters (page, size, sort, filter) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'ERS filter expressions' which hints at the filter parameter's purpose, and the deployment parameter has a solid schema description. However, the description doesn't explain the filter expression syntax meaningfully, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema for the majority of parameters.

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/filter Authorization Profiles with ERS filter expressions,' which identifies the verb (search/filter), resource (Authorization Profiles), and mechanism (ERS filter expressions). It's clear enough but doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools (ise_ers_search_downloadableacl, etc.) beyond the resource name, and the generic listing/generic search siblings share the ERS framework.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that listing all profiles might use ise_ers_list_authorizationprofile, that getting one by ID uses ise_ers_get_authorizationprofile, or that the generic ise_ers_search covers this resource. The deployment parameter description references ise_list_deployments for choosing a deployment, which is a small usage hint, but overall no when/when-not guidance.

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