search_interface_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent is aware this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'filtering and pagination,' which restates schema capabilities rather than providing new behavioral context like result limits or client-side filtering behavior.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity with a rich schema (100% coverage), solid read-only annotations, and an output schema present. The description is adequate for this context, but the unresolved ambiguity between `search_interface_configs` and `search_interfaces` prevents a perfect score.

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%, with each parameter (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term) already well-documented. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' maps to the schema but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('interface configurations'), and mentions the key features of filtering and pagination. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as `search_interfaces` and `find_interfaces_by_status`, which could lead to confusion about which tool to use.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the abundance of similar search tools in the sibling list, this lack of differentiation is a notable gap.

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