ise_ers_search_sgt

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. The description only states filter functionality but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, return format, what happens with no filter (full listing), rate limits, or whether the filter syntax 'contains' vs 'equals' semantics. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 no waste. It front-loads the core purpose. However, given the low schema coverage, it could afford to be slightly longer to add parameter guidance 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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is under-specified. The 'filter' parameter's ERS expression syntax is a critical piece of guidance that is absent. The description doesn't explain how filtering works, what a typical filter expression looks like, or how results are paginated. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, with only the 'deployment' parameter (and sort, filter, page, size) having descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the name. The 'filter' parameter is not explained in terms of ERS filter expression syntax, and 'sort' format is not documented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Search/filter Security Group Tags (SGTs) with ERS filter expressions'), which is clear. However, it fails to distinguish from the many sibling variants like ise_ers_list_sgt, ise_ers_get_sgt, and similar 'search' tools for other resources (search_downloadableacl, search_guesttype, etc.), though the SGT specificity does differentiate from those other resource types.

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 usage for filtering/searching SGTs without listing everything. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus ise_ers_list_sgt (unfiltered listing) or ise_ers_get_sgt (individual fetch), nor does it mention ise_ers_search as a general alternative. Some context is implied by the word 'filter' but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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