Search Operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior; it does state matching scope, returned fields, and a follow-up recommendation. However, it does not disclose matching semantics (substring vs token), limit behavior, or whether the search is purely read-only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two tight sentences: one for purpose, one for matching/return details and follow-up. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, and the most important verb-resource pairing 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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, match fields, return values, and a next-step hint. The only substantial missing context is the behavior/meaning of `limit` and potentially how many matches are returned by default, but the schema's default value partially mitigates this.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates for `query` by explaining what it matches against with concrete examples ('client', 'reboot'). It never explains `limit`, relying on its name and default value, so parameter clarification is only partially complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search this controller's Omada API operations by keyword') and enumerates exactly what fields are matched and returned. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like call_operation or get_operation_schema.

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?

It clearly implies the intended use — finding operations by keyword before invoking them — and explicitly advises calling get_operation_schema when parameters are unclear. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling search alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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