search_configurations

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the return type (JSON string), output format options, and the optional save_to_file behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any authentication or rate-limit considerations. This is a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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 well-structured with an initial summary line, an Args section, and a Returns line. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose. While the parameter explanations are a bit lengthy, they are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters and the return type. It doesn't detail the output schema structure, but that's acceptable since an output schema exists. It could mention error cases or result ordering, but overall it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query matches name or hostname, organization_id limits search, limit has default/max, output_format lists valid values, and save_to_file behavior is described. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema and clearly guides usage.

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 purpose: 'Search for configurations by name or hostname.' It specifies a verb, resource, and search criteria. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_configurations or get_configuration, the search-by-query nature is implied and distinct enough. A 4 is appropriate because it's specific but could more explicitly state when to use search vs. list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_configurations lists all configurations or that get_configuration retrieves a single one. The usage is only implied through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'query' suggests searching). No explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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