search_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the tool does but not that it is read-only, how results are ordered, how pagination works (offset/limit), or what happens with no matches. The required 'handle' parameter is unexplained, which is a notable omission 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not verbose and avoids redundancy, but the brevity sacrifices important details like usage context and parameter behavior, making it less effective than a slightly longer, structured description.

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?

While the output schema exists and likely describes the return format, the description lacks critical usage details: how filters combine, the meaning of the required 'handle' parameter, pagination semantics, and any constraints on parameter usage. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without additional inference from parameter names and defaults.

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 description maps some parameters to search criteria: driver ('тип'), address_prefix ('префикс адреса'), description ('описанию'), and property_value ('значению свойства'). However, it omits property_name, handle (required), limit, and offset. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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 the tool searches devices and lists the search criteria (type/driver, address prefix, description, property value). This is a specific verb + resource with distinct filter dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_devices, though the word 'search' implies filtered listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_devices or get_device. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for choosing this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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