search_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does disclose the data source (FortiGate's own schema), the cmdb-vs-monitor split, and what to do next. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss result limits/pagination, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Tight two-sentence structure that front-loads the core capability and the domain split before the follow-up routing. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must set expectations, and it does explain the nature of the results and how to consume them via the follow-up tools. It leaves the exact result shape and limit behavior unstated, a minor gap given the concrete examples.

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, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the 'kind' domain (configuration vs. live state) and giving keyword-to-path examples ('bgp' -> router/bgp, 'ha peer' -> system/ha-peer) that clarify how 'query' matching works.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find FortiOS API endpoints by keyword') and grounds it in a concrete source ('the FortiGate's own schema'). It also distinguishes the two searchable domains (configuration/cmdb vs. live state/monitor) with worked examples, which no sibling tool does.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to reach any setting no dedicated tool covers') and names the follow-up tools (describe_config, get_config, set_config, get_monitor), giving a clear workflow. It stops short of stating an explicit when-not rule (e.g. prefer dedicated tools), though that is strongly implied.

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