search_auth_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contextual detail that it covers LDAP and RADIUS servers but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or return format, though an output schema exists to cover those.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the output schema, and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and optional filtering. It does not explicitly state that it returns a list, but 'search' implies that, so a slight deduction for that omission.

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 100%, so all parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term) are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optional filtering' adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' with a clear resource 'pfSense authentication servers' and specifies the types (LDAP, RADIUS). This clearly distinguishes it from other search tools for different resources like search_crls or search_ntp_time_servers.

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 the tool is used to search auth servers but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Since there is no alternative search tool for auth servers, the usage is implicitly understood but not explicitly guided.

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