opn_neighbors

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does establish that this is a passive table read with no mutation implied. It does not mention permissions/authentication requirements, whether an empty table is an error or an empty list, or result size limits. With an output schema present, the return shape is covered elsewhere, which keeps this from being a larger gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the optional modifier second. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter, default-all read tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource and both parameters' semantics. Only minor gaps remain: default behavior when no filter is given and any permission assumption.

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% and the parameters are bare enums/unnamed, yet the description supplies the key semantics: 'family' selects the protocol (ipv4→ARP, ipv6→NDP) and 'search' matches IP, MAC, or hostname substring. That is exactly the meaning the schema lacks, so the description meaningfully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 sentence names the concrete resource (ARP table for ipv4, NDP table for ipv6) and its optional filtering, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is a clear verb-less but unambiguous 'read this table' definition; it just doesn't differentiate against siblings, though the sibling list (api_search, ping, firewall_*) contains nothing overlapping.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by IP/MAC/hostname substring' implicitly tells the agent to use the search parameter for lookups by address, MAC, or name, which is the main usage decision here. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g. when to use a general item lookup instead).

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