search_interface_bridges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting filtering and pagination, but it does not go beyond the schema and does not describe result behavior or limitations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary details and effectively communicates the core function.

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?

With a full output schema and strong annotations, the definition is minimally viable for a simple search tool. However, it lacks any guidance on how this search differs from many related search interfaces and does not articulate any non-goals or limitations, making it incomplete for tool-selection context.

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?

All four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term) are fully documented in the schema with types, defaults, and descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description only generically references filtering and pagination without adding additional meaning to any specific parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'interface bridges', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_interface_bridge and get_available_interfaces. The mention of 'filtering and pagination' adds functional scope and reinforces the search behavior.

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 a lookup use case via the word 'Search' and the read-only annotations, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_interfaces, search_interface_configs, or search_interface_groups. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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