search_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses that the underlying call is read-only despite being a POST, and states the return shape (count plus matching records). It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the Args list and keeps each parameter entry to a single line. The closing sentence restates the return shape that the existing output schema already covers, which is minor redundancy, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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 4-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the definition supplies the read-only nature, the filtering model, and full parameter semantics. Only ancillary operational details (auth, rate limits) are absent, which are not essential to correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: it explains value (with examples), field (default and common values), match (operators and default 'eq'), and limit (explicit 1–1000 range not present in the schema). Every parameter gains semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search cluster inventory for workloads') plus the filtering mechanism (field/value). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_flows by scoping to inventory/workloads, but never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is only inferable rather than stated.

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?

Provides implied usage by listing common field values ('ip', 'hostname', 'os', 'user_annotations') and match operators, which hints at when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related search_flows alternative.

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