searchDevices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says the tool searches and returns matching devices; it omits output format, pagination, exact match behavior, or any implication about access/error handling. This is a thinn behavioral description for a tool with no other context.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary scope is front-loaded ('Search for devices globally across all sites the user has access to'), and the next sentence adds the matching behavior.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but because there is no output schema and no parameter documentation, it should at least specify what the search key matches and what kind of result is returned. As written, an agent may invoke it without knowing how to construct a searchKey or interpret the result.

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?

The input schema only defines a searchKey string with minLength 1, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats 'search key' in prose without explaining what fields are searched, whether it matches partial strings, IDs, IPs, or device names. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Search for devices'), a clear resource ('devices'), and a distinct scope ('globally across all sites the user has access to'). This also differentiates it from siblings like listDevices or getDevice, which are likely site-scoped or single-device lookups.

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 clear usage context: call this when you need to find devices across all sites the user can access, using a search key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the global-scope wording gives sufficient routing context.

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