Search endpoints (client-side substring filter, cursor-paginated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable behavioral info: it walks pages client-side, which affects performance and pagination behavior. This goes beyond the 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?

Two sentences, 14 words, no fluff. The core action and a key behavioral caveat 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to cover return values. It mentions the pagination approach and the matching fields. It could mention how to use the cursor parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for the tool's operation.

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 reiterates the fields but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The title mentions cursor-paginated but the description itself does not elaborate on cursor 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 it performs substring search across specific fields (hostname, user, OS, status) and the title adds cursor-paginated detail. The mention of walking pages client-side distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints that likely have server-side filtering.

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 explains when to use this tool (for substring search) and why (no server-side search in Action1), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear for an agent to decide.

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