search_hostname

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a default limit of 10 and a maximum of 50, which is helpful, but it omits other behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or exact vs partial matching semantics beyond the initial phrase. This is average transparency.

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 brief and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a context optimization note, and an Args list. However, the 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' line overlaps with the limit argument description, creating slight redundancy.

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's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers the essential points: purpose, arguments, and default behavior. Minor gaps like wildcard support or case sensitivity are acceptable but prevent 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 0%, so the description's Args section is crucial. It defines 'hostname' as the search string and 'limit' as the maximum results with default and max values, including the max 50 that is absent from the schema. This adds meaningful clarification beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Search for IP addresses by exact or partial hostname in phpIPAM.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('IP addresses'), and the hostname focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_subnets or search_addresses.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (when you have a hostname to look up), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_addresses or search_subnets. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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