search_configurations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search for configurations' without mentioning pagination, sorting, filtering behavior, return format, or any rate limits. The schema hints at pagination via page_size/page_number, but the description itself does not explain these behaviors.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description does not explain the return value format or overall behavior. It does not mention that results are paginated or that multiple filters can be combined. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to give a complete picture of the tool's capabilities and outputs.

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 100%, with every parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds only a minor clarification that configurations are devices/assets, but does not supplement any parameter-specific information. Thus, it meets the baseline for parameter semantics without adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for configurations (devices/assets) in IT Glue'. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('configurations'), and clarifies that configurations refer to devices/assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_configuration, which implies retrieving a single item, and search_organizations, which targets a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the verb 'Search' implies usage for listing/filtering versus retrieving a specific configuration, there is no explicit comparison to get_configuration or other search tools.

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