phpipam.search

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 does not mention result format, case sensitivity, wildcard support, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description only states the action without revealing expected behavior beyond the obvious search intent.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, naming both the action and the target resource without any redundant phrasing.

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 is simple with only two fully described parameters, and no output schema exists. The description does not explain what a successful search returns (e.g., a list of matching addresses) or any limitations, but the minimal complexity and parameter richness partly compensate. It is borderline adequate but leaves the agent with unknowns about the response structure.

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 schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, providing the baseline of 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only restating that search can be by IP, hostname, or other criteria, which is already captured in the query parameter description. No extra semantic depth is added.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('addresses'), and lists criteria (IP, hostname, other) that distinguish it from sibling list/get functions. It is a precise statement of what the tool does.

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 context that the tool searches by various criteria but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like addresses.list or addresses.get. The usage is implied by the word 'search', but no direct guidance is provided on when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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