Find guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond restating the returned fields (partly redundant given an output schema exists): it does not say that all filters are optional, how filters combine, whether results are paginated, or what permissions are required. Useful but thin context on top of complete 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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is certainly concise. However, it is not front-loaded with an action verb and reads like an output summary rather than a definition, so terseness here costs clarity rather than buying it.

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 (four optional filters, no nesting) and both annotations and an output schema are supplied, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. What remains missing is the practical bit an agent needs: that every filter is optional and unfiltered calls return the full inventory, and how this differs from guest_details and overview. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and each parameter carries a description plus an example ("prod", "erp"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how tag, kind, query and status interact, whether they are ANDed, or whether omitting them returns all guests. No credit for the field list, which duplicates the output 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?

"VMs and containers with status, tags, CPU and memory in use now, and uptime" names the resource and the returned fields, so an agent can infer it lists/searches guests. But it is a noun phrase with no verb: it never says whether this lists, searches, filters or aggregates, and only the tool name supplies that. It distinguishes the resource from siblings like guest_details, but the action is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. With siblings guest_details, overview and needs_attention present, the agent gets no signal about when to call this inventory-style tool versus fetching a single guest's details or a global overview. Only the parameter names imply that filtering is the intended use.

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