bare_metal_search_bare_metal_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list of matching plans, which implies a read-only search. However, it does not explain whether filters are combined, whether all filters are optional, or what happens when no criteria are provided.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a bullet-style Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a low-complexity search tool with an output schema present, this description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the filter parameters, their units, and the return type. It could be improved by clarifying optionality and filter combination behavior, but those are partially inferable from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining all four parameters and adding meaningful units: vCPUs, RAM in GB, disk in GB, and cost in USD. It does not explicitly note that all parameters are optional, though the schema's null defaults convey that.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search bare metal plans by specifications.' It clearly communicates the tool's function and the four filtering dimensions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like bare_metal_list_bare_metal_plans or plan_search_plans_by_specs, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'by specifications' implies this tool is for spec-based filtering rather than plain listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as list/get plan operations. Usage context is only implied.

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