eset_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: case-insensitivity, the fact that results carry UUIDs and the matched field, and (via the kinds parameter) that scope reduction saves quota. It stops short of describing result ordering or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and return shape first, then the routing guidance with examples. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating what comes back (matching items, UUIDs, matched field). Given three well-documented parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only minor details like result ordering and cross-kind result shape are absent.

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 every parameter is already documented, including defaults, bounds (1-200, default 20) and per-kind narrowing guidance. The description contributes only illustrative fragments mapping to kinds, which is marginal on top of the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Case-insensitive substring search across devices, users, policies and groups" names a specific verb, the exact resource set, and the matching semantics. It also states the return shape (matching items with UUIDs plus which field matched), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the many list_*/get_* siblings without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent: "Use this instead of list_* + manual filtering when you have a name fragment", and gives concrete fragment examples ('jeff', 'laptop-23', 'finance'). It does not state the inverse case — that an exact UUID lookup should use device_devices__get_device or user_users__get_user instead — so the exclusion side is only implied.

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