search_firewall_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that it returns 'effective' rules across all firewalls and explains filter matching, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or default behavior for the limit parameter.

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 one line, followed by compact per-parameter notes with no filler. Efficient and readable, though the bare parameter list reads slightly like notes rather than prose.

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?

Covers most filter parameters well for a 7-param tool with no output schema, but omits the limit/pagination semantics and does not explain what distinguishes 'effective rules' from raw configured rules. Adequate but with a visible gap.

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 carry the load, and it does: it defines port (ranges and '*'), source/destination (IP/CIDR/service tag/'internet'), fqdn (wildcards), action values (Allow/Deny/DNAT), and rule_type values (dnat/network/application). Only the limit parameter (default 200) goes undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('search every firewall's effective rules'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as firewall_rules, search_nsg_rules, or nsg_rules_for, so the agent cannot tell which to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite several overlapping siblings (firewall_rules, search_nsg_rules). The description documents matching syntax but never says when this tool should be chosen over the alternatives.

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