devices_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain includeInherited behavior and the pagination/sort inputs, and the read-only nature of a search is reasonably implied. However, it does not describe the response shape, pagination defaults, maximum page sizes, or any access requirements.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details and the includeInherited caveat. It is efficient, though the phrase 'Body is a SearchPostModel' is somewhat redundant with the schema and the unsupported 'filter' claim introduces mild ambiguity.

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?

The description is not complete for a search tool with no annotations and no output schema. It leaves the response format and pagination behavior unspecified, offers no comparison to sibling device tools, and claims filter support that is not reflected in the input schema, making it harder for an agent to know exactly what this endpoint returns and how to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying 'start' as an integer offset and explaining the effect of includeInherited, but it mostly paraphrases the schema's existing parameter descriptions without adding substantial new meaning.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('devices'), and the core capabilities (filter/sort/pagination), which distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools like devices_get_by_fqdn and devices_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives, and the mention of 'filter' is slightly misleading because the input schema exposes no filter parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling device tools such as devices_list, devices_get_by_fqdn, or devices_summary. The description implies a search use case but does not state when not to use it or which alternative to choose for simple listing or direct lookup.

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