f5-status-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching 'F5 Cloud status information' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., list of matches). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with no structured safety or operational hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search F5 Cloud status information') and adds necessary scope details. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what format results come in), error conditions, or operational constraints. While the purpose is clear, the behavioral and output gaps make it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional context.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (query and type with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'keyword or pattern' and listing entity types, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search'), target resource ('F5 Cloud status information'), and scope ('by keyword or pattern, including components, incidents, and maintenance'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'f5-status-get-component' (singular) and 'f5-status-get-overall' (aggregate) by emphasizing search functionality across multiple entity types.

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 context for keyword-based searching across status entities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'f5-status-get-incidents' (which might fetch all incidents without search). It provides clear scope but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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