search_device_fleet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns all matching devices from all consoles and that key_label scopes the search, which is useful. It does not mention pagination, limits, read-only status, or response details, but for a search tool this may be acceptable. Overall, it adds some transparency but not rich detail.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose, then adding a one-line scope statement and parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the search behavior, scope, and parameter semantics. It could optionally mention matching semantics (case sensitivity, partial match) but such details are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It clearly explains that query is required and matched against name, model, and MAC, and that key_label scopes to consoles visible to a specific API key. Both parameters are given practical meaning beyond raw schema definitions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for a device by name, MAC address, or model across the entire fleet.' It also clarifies scope by noting 'all consoles,' which differentiates it from more targeted device searches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling search_across_sites, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it (fleet-wide search) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_devices or search_across_sites. It does provide parameter-level guidance for key_label, which helps an agent decide how to scope the search. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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