ise_ers_search_sgacl

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 doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, default pagination behavior, how many results it returns, or the ERS API's filtering limitations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly enhanced without losing brevity—but as written it's appropriately concise.

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 has 5 parameters with only 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only explains the tool's general purpose without detailing filter expression syntax, pagination, sorting, or deployment targeting (other than what schema provides). For a search tool with this complexity, more guidance is needed.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'deployment' has a description). The description mentions filter expressions, which relates to the 'filter' parameter, but adds no detail on filter syntax, format, or operators. The page/size/sort params are entirely undocumented in both description and schema, leaving the agent guessing about defaults and semantics.

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 SGACLs with ERS filter expressions, matching the name's 'search' verb and sgacl resource. It distinguishes from the list (ise_ers_list_sgacl) and get (ise_ers_get_sgacl) siblings by specifying filter expressions, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. It mentions 'ERS filter expressions' but doesn't clarify when filtering is needed versus plain listing, nor does it reference sibling search tools for other resources. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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