ise_ers_search_restidstore

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 is a search operation implied to be read-only, but the description does not state pagination behavior, return format, whether filter expressions are validated, or what happens on no results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for its purpose, though it could add a brief note on filter expression format without becoming verbose.

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 filtered-list search tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. It does not explain the ERS filter expression syntax, which is a meaningful gap for a search tool, nor does it describe what the result set looks like. For a moderately complex tool this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'filter expressions' generally but does not detail the filter parameter syntax or the other params (page, size, sort). However, the deployment parameter in the schema is well documented with concrete examples ('RADIUS Only', 'radius-only', '1'), which handles that portion. The overall semantic clarity is adequate but the filter expression details are left to the agent to infer.

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 REST ID Stores with ERS filter expressions' uses a specific verb (Search/filter) and names the resource (REST ID Stores), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list/get variants (ise_ers_list_restidstore, ise_ers_get_restidstore). It lacks a bit of detail about what a REST ID Store is, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies the tool is for searching/filtering rather than listing all or getting a single item, which differentiates it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs list/get, nor explain the filter expression syntax or format. The schema does document the deployment parameter with helpful usage guidance (naming formats, omitting for default).

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