searchDevices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful permission scoping ('all sites the user has access to'), but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or whether matching is substring or exact — meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 with no filler, and the scope constraint is stated before the return behavior. It is arguably slightly too terse given the unexplained parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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 structurally simple (one required string, flat schema, no output schema to explain), but the one thing an agent must know — what to put in searchKey — is absent from both schema and description. Adequate on scope, incomplete on 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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says what searchKey matches (device name, MAC, serial, model) or whether matching is exact or case-insensitive partial.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search for devices') plus a scope qualifier ('globally across all sites the user has access to'). This implicitly separates it from the site-scoped sibling getAllDeviceBySite and from listDevices, though neither is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'globally across all sites' implies the right context for use, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. An agent must infer that listDevices/getAllDeviceBySite are the narrower options.

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