Search Omada API operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful fact that results are projected to operationId, HTTP method, path and summary, which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention truncation or what happens when limit is exceeded, leaving one behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then the return shape, then the next-step routing. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the field-match list is the most decision-relevant detail placed first.

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 four-parameter, optional-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, what it returns, and how to continue the workflow, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps (pagination behavior, limit semantics) are minor and visible in 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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by clarifying that 'query' is matched against multiple fields rather than just the operationId — meaning an agent can pass natural-language phrases like 'reboot device'. The 'limit' parameter's role and the 200 cap remain undocumented outside the schema.

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 Omada Open API operations') and enumerates exactly which fields the keyword search matches (operationId, summary, category, path, description), so an agent knows precisely what the tool searches. It also implicitly separates itself from omada_describe_operation and omada_call_operation by naming them as the next steps rather than alternatives.

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 gives explicit workflow routing: search first, then omada_describe_operation, then omada_call_operation. That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., use omada_request for arbitrary endpoints, or omada_list_tags for enumeration), so it falls just shy of full alternative coverage.

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