search_bind_access_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Search' is consistent with those. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result format, or search scope beyond the resource name. It does not contradict the annotations, but also provides no extra transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is a straightforward search operation with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety. The description is minimally adequate but does not mention that search_term is a client-side filter or that results are paginated; while the schema covers these details, the description itself offers little contextual richness beyond the purpose.

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%, with all four parameters already well-documented (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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' and a specific resource 'BIND access control lists', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dns_access_lists and manage_bind_access_list. It fully states what the tool does with precise scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_dns_access_lists or manage_bind_access_list. The name implies usage for searching BIND ACLs, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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