Search clients

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world search operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope by saying it covers online and offline/historical clients, but it does not clarify pagination behavior, result limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded and avoids unnecessary wording, which is good structure. However, it ends with an ellipsis and an incomplete phrase, so the sentence is not fully formed and leaves the reader with a truncated definition rather than a complete concise statement.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with only 25% schema description coverage, the definition gives useful information about search fields and online/offline scope. It remains incomplete because it does not explain several filters or distinguish the tool from list/get alternatives. The output schema and annotations help cover return values and safety, but the description itself is only minimally adequate.

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 description lists several searchable fields, including MAC, name, hostname, IP, SSID, and VLAN/network, which adds meaning beyond the schema's mostly undocumented parameters. However, schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description does not explain site, guest, active, wireless, or how query maps to the listed fields. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 verb and resource: search clients. It adds meaningful scope by saying online and offline/historical clients can be found by MAC, name, hostname, IP, SSID, or VLAN/network. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_clients or get_client, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by listing searchable fields, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this search tool instead of list_clients, list_wifi_clients, list_wired_clients, or get_client. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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