Find device groups

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

Discloses several behavioral traits beyond the schema: case-insensitive substring matching, return fields, and the fact that both group types come from a single gateway list. No annotations exist, so the description carries this burden; while it omits pagination details, those are covered in the schema.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action and return fields. Every sentence contributes value, with no wasted words.

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 a simple search tool with rich schema coverage, the description fully covers purpose, scope, matching behavior, and return values. Without an output schema, specifying the returned fields is necessary and handled. The limit behavior is already documented in the schema, so no gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the case-insensitive detail, but most parameter semantics (query substring, limit default and max) are already in the schema, so no substantial additional meaning is provided.

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 a specific action ('Search device groups by name or description') and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getComputerGroup and findDevices by focusing on substring search across group metadata.

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?

Provides clear context by noting it covers both computer and mobile groups, smart and static, which implies a broad search use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the scope statement effectively guides selection.

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