search_policy_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Without changing Panorama' is a clear, essential non-mutation guarantee, which is especially valuable given the search/analysis nature of the tool. It does not disclose permissions or performance characteristics, but the most critical safety trait is present.

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?

The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence: it begins with the action, specifies the scope (duplicates, coverage, conflicts, overlaps), and appends the key constraint (no mutation). There is no filler, repetition, or wasted wording.

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?

The tool has a complex, required request object and no parameter descriptions, yet the description does not explain what goes in that object or how rulebase/device_group affect the search. The output schema may document return values, but invocation semantics are far too thin for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 description provides no guidance on the three parameters (request, rulebase, device_group). The required 'request' object is completely opaque, with additionalProperties true and zero explanation, so an agent has no idea how to construct a valid invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names concrete resources (exact duplicates, coverage, conflicts, partial overlaps), while adding a non-mutation guarantee. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_security_rules, which retrieve rules, and preclear_rule_request, which likely modifies state.

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 implies this is a policy-analysis tool but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or list exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from the verb and resources, but there is no direct routing guidance like 'use instead of get_security_rules when assessing overlap.'

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