management_groups_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the operation is a 'Search,' which suggests a read action, but it does not describe return format, pagination defaults, whether filtering is actually supported via a parameter, or any edge cases. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a search endpoint, though it could have added a bit more parameter context without becoming bloated.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It omits response shape, parameter format details, defaults, and any clarification about the 'filter' capability. A few more sentences about behavior and parameter semantics would meaningfully improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only offers broad categories: 'filter/sort/pagination.' It maps loosely to sort, start, and pageSize, but it does not explain sort property/direction semantics, page size behavior, or how 'filter' is represented—especially since no filter parameter appears in 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?

The description states a clear action ('Search') and resource ('Management Groups'), and names key capabilities (filter/sort/pagination). It is more informative than a tautology and distinguishes itself from simple list operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like management_groups_list or management_groups_get_by_id.

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 this tool is for searching Management Groups with filtering, sorting, and pagination, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as management_groups_list or management_groups_get_by_id, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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