bluetooth_search

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a read-only search. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior, result limits, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 9 parameters including pagination ('search_after') and bounding box, the description omits crucial context like pagination mechanics (cursor use) and that results are limited per page. While the output schema may document the response, the description should hint at pagination for proper agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description groups parameters by type (name, MAC, location) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the SQL LIKE pattern syntax for 'name_like' that is already 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 clearly states the tool searches WiGLE's Bluetooth/BLE database by name, MAC, or location. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('WiGLE's database of observed Bluetooth/BLE devices'), and the criteria are listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluetooth_detail (which likely retrieves details for a single device) and other type-specific searches.

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 usage for Bluetooth/BLE searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or preferred scenarios. Sibling tools are mentioned in context but not referenced in the description.

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