itglue_search_configurations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: case-sensitive substring matching for name, auto-retry strategy on 0-hit (first-word and diacritic-stripped variants), and reporting of search strategy via meta.search_strategy. It does not discuss behavior of other filters (e.g., if they are exact matches) or pagination details beyond what schema provides, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and accurate.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second explains critical behavior and alternative. Every word is necessary, no fluff. Front-loaded with the tool's primary action.

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 11 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description effectively covers the most important nuance (name matching behavior) and provides a clear alternative for fuzzy use cases. It does not explain pagination or response structure, but the schema's pageSize/pageNumber are self-explanatory, and the auto-retry mechanism is well-documented. Overall, it feels sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the name parameter's case-sensitive substring behavior and auto-retry fallback, which is not evident from the schema description alone. For other parameters, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the name parameter compensation raises the score.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'IT Glue configurations' and immediately distinguishes from sibling tool itglue_find_config_match by stating the alternative's purpose (fuzzy lookup with confidence scoring). The description also details the exact matching behavior of the name parameter, making the tool's purpose very clear.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for searching) and when to use the sibling itglue_find_config_match (for fuzzy lookup). However, it does not provide guidance on other potential use cases or when not to use it, such as when exact matches are required.

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