search_subnets

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a genuine behavioral note ('CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION: Limited to 10 results by default') that explains intent beyond the schema default. However, it does not disclose match semantics (exact vs fuzzy, CIDR normalization), result ordering, or any permissions implications.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION note is compact and informative. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema and repeats 'CIDR, description', but given 0% schema coverage the repetition is justified; little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere, and both parameters are adequately described for invocation. Missing pieces are sibling routing guidance and specificity about what 'other criteria' means — an agent can call this correctly but may pick it incorrectly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define parameters and does so: query accepts CIDR/description terms, and limit specifies a max of 1000 that is not encoded in the schema at all. The default of 10 is also restated, providing genuine semantic value beyond the structured 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Search subnets') and enumerates searchable criteria (CIDR, description). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like search_addresses or search_hostname, and 'or other criteria' is vague about what else qualifies as a valid query.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over its search siblings (search_addresses, search_hostname) or listing alternatives (get_section_subnets). The description contains no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing hints — a real gap given 14 siblings.

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