search_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists searched fields (product names, services, ports, protocols, descriptions, headings) but omits details like return format, pagination, or case sensitivity. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Concise and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by field list and parameter description. No wasted words, but could be slightly more compact.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description covers scope, examples, and searched fields. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. Minor gaps like query limitations are absent but not critical.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by naming the parameter 'query' with examples ('SMTP', 'backup server', 'cloud gateway'). This provides context beyond the schema type definition.

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 tool searches across all Veeam products for port requirements with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('port requirements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_by_port_number' by indicating a broader multi-field search.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples like 'which products use SMTP' or 'what needs port 443', clearly indicating the type of queries it handles. However, it lacks direct comparison to siblings to specify when not to use it.

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