search_alarms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavior: it mentions the HTTP endpoint (GET /v2/alarms), pagination limit of 500 per request, cursor following up to the limit, and scoping to a box ID. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent anticipate API behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that lists all 16 alarm types, making it somewhat long but logically structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the type mapping and behavioral details. While it could be more concise (e.g., moving the type list to a reference section), it is organized and readable.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, pagination, and scoping but does not describe the response format (e.g., what fields are returned, how groups look). This is a gap because agents need to know how to parse results. Given the complexity of 5 parameters, this omission prevents full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds the alarm type mapping (1-16) referenced by the query parameter, which is essential for constructing valid queries. It also explains pagination behavior with cursor and limit, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions. This is a meaningful supplement to 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 function: 'Search alarms using full-text or field filters.' It specifies the resource (alarms) and the action (search), and even lists alarm types, which helps understanding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_active_alarms or get_specific_alarm, so it falls short of the 5-level criterion that requires distinguishing from siblings.

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. It does not mention conditions for choosing this over get_active_alarms or get_specific_alarm, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The only context given is scoping to FIREWALLA_BOX_ID, which is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.

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