search_devices

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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'bounded filters and pagination' rather than an unbounded search. It does not discuss result limits, case-insensitivity, or authentication, though the output schema and parameter descriptions cover some of that. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: the verb, scope, and search modes are front-loaded. 'global or organization-scoped' and 'bounded filters and pagination' pack meaningful constraints into a compact phrase, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 tool with 11 optional parameters, a fully documented schema, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough high-level orientation for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could have been slightly more explicit about name-vs-pagination mutual exclusivity and the orgUnitId scoping, but those details are already captured in the parameter descriptions.

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 input schema already documents all 11 parameters with constraints, enums, and descriptions. The tool description's mention of 'human name or bounded filters and pagination' maps loosely to the name, select, and pagination parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('N-central device inventory'), then states scope ('global or organization-scoped') and the two main access modes ('human name or bounded filters and pagination'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_organizations or get_device_context.

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 'global or organization-scoped N-central device inventory' phrasing gives an agent clear context for when to use this tool: when locating devices by name or filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the target use case is evident without needing to open the schema.

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