search_fail2ban_banned_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, result limits, or what fields a banned IP record contains — important gaps given the page/pageSize parameters.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity is achieved by omission rather than precision, leaving the definition under-specified.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the only information available and it is one clause long. For a paginated search tool it should at minimum describe the response shape and pagination semantics.

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 explain the two parameters, and it says nothing about them. An agent cannot tell whether page is zero- or one-indexed, what pageSize defaults to, or whether either is required.

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?

Gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('banned IPs in Fail2ban'), so an agent knows exactly what domain is queried. It does not name or differentiate against any sibling, though no sibling tool covers banned IPs directly, so there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to related tools such as get_fail2ban_base_info or operate_fail2ban. The agent must infer that this is the read path for ban data.

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