search_network

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and keys, omitting output format, match semantics (exact vs partial), no-match behavior, and any potential side effects. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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?

A single sentence with no filler words; the verb and key details are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify return values and query behavior. The alias mismatch is an additional gap.

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% for the single query parameter. The tool description adds 'alias' and the 'devices or clients' scope beyond the schema, but this slightly conflicts with the parameter description, which omits alias. The added meaning is marginal yet acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('devices or clients') and names the search keys (IP, MAC, hostname, or alias). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_devices and list_clients, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_devices, list_clients, or get_device_details. No when-not conditions or alternative tool names are provided; usage must be inferred from the search verb alone.

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