ports_search_mac

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., output format, pagination, or performance traits). It is adequate but uninformative 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient but slightly under-specified; a bit more detail (e.g., 'Returns matching ports') would improve without harming conciseness.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, existing output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the primary function. Minor gaps like not mentioning the return format are compensated by the output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage for the 'mac' parameter with a detailed description of accepted formats. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, earning the baseline score.

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 specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'ports in LibreNMS', and the exact criterion 'by MAC address'. This succinctly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'ports_search' and 'arp_search'.

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 implies usage when the agent has a MAC address to query, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'ports_search', 'fdb_lookup'). No when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions are provided.

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