search_device_parameters

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses that a version check happens each call, that a missing catalog triggers an automatic read-only fetch, that the response carries dictionary identity, cache time, and source, and that no current values are included. It also adds the anti-fabrication constraint on enums, which is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Information-dense with no filler; each sentence contributes a distinct rule (scope, routing, return shape, enum constraint). The version-check clause is wedged mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded, which slightly interrupts the flow from purpose to routing.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes them usefully (identity, cache time, source, no current values). The one gap is that connection targeting — port and transport — is left entirely to unidentified schema fields for a six-parameter tool.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only implicitly covers grouping and pagination (group/limit/offset) and query. The port parameter (default COM7) and the transport enum (selected_tcp vs serial) are never explained, leaving a meaningful selection gap for a device-targeting tool.

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 names a specific verb+resource: search the function-code names and attributes fetched online from the selected device, with group and pagination support. It directly contrasts with the sibling read_device_parameters by stating it does not return current values, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It states explicit routing: use read_device_parameters for current values, and this tool for name/attribute lookup. It also gives operational rules — verify device/parameter version on every call, auto-fetch read-only when the catalog is missing, and never fabricate enum descriptions from other device models.

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