search_across_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope and match fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether results are merged across devices and clients, pagination limits, or permission requirements. Basic behavior is clear but richer context is absent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter design and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It lacks a clear differentiation from similar search tools (e.g., search_device_fleet) but otherwise provides enough for a competent agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description explicitly explains the sole 'query' parameter: 'search term matched against name, MAC address, IP, or model.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail and tells the agent exactly what to pass.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'Search', resource 'devices or clients', and scope 'across all sites'. It also lists the matched fields (name, MAC, IP, model), distinguishing it from list-style siblings like list_all_devices or list_all_clients. No ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of search_device_fleet or other search-like tools, and no condition for selecting this one. The description only explains what it does, not when to prefer it.

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