search_interface_groups

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are already disclosed structurally. The description adds context about client-side filtering via search_term, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior details (e.g., default page size, limits, response structure) beyond what the schema already states. No contradictions found.

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 covers the main purpose, filtering, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read-only search with no required parameters, a full output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is adequately complete. It could mention response structure, but the output schema compensates. The lack of guidance on when to use this vs. sibling search tools is a minor gap, but overall this is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds the meaning of 'search_term' as a client-side filter, which complements the schema. It also implies that search_term covers group name/description, matching the schema's parameter description. Overall, the description adds nuance to the search behavior without the need to repeat all parameter docs.

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 'Search interface groups with filtering and pagination' clearly states the tool's verb (search) and resource (interface groups), and mentions filtering and pagination. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_interfaces' or 'search_interface_configs', the resource 'interface groups' is specific enough on its own.

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 for searching interface groups with optional filters, and the parameter names provide pagination context. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_interface_configs, search_interface_bridges) is provided, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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