uisp_search_sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose that the search supports geographic bias (latitude/longitude), whether results are paginated (though schema implies it), or that it returns a list of matches. No side effects or safety information is provided for a search operation that is presumably read-only.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and the essential search dimensions are stated. This is efficient and well-structured.

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 description is too thin for a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema. It omits the geographic search feature (lat/long), doesn't explain result structure or pagination behavior, and provides no context on typical use cases. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions search criteria that map to the 'query' parameter but doesn't elaborate on interactions (e.g., how type filters or lat/long bias work). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource (sites, endpoints, clients) along with search criteria (name, address, MAC, IP). It is specific enough to distinguish from list/get tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like uisp_list_sites. The purpose is evident but could be more explicit about being the search counterpart.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus listing tools or when to avoid it. The description doesn't mention that uisp_list_sites is for unfiltered listing or that this search is for targeted lookups. An agent gets no decision support for tool selection.

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