search_bind_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds the BIND package prerequisite and mentions filtering/pagination, but does not elaborate on response characteristics, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes a necessary prerequisite without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search/list tool, the description is complete enough given the presence of annotations and an output schema. It covers the core operation and prerequisite. It could be more explicit about alternatives, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description only implicitly groups parameters into 'filtering' (zone_type, search_term) and 'pagination' (page, page_size), which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Search BIND DNS zones' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_bind_zone, update_bind_zone, and search_bind_zone_records. It also highlights filtering and pagination capabilities.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires the BIND package to be installed on pfSense') which is useful for deployment context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_bind_zone_records. Usage is implied by the tool name and description rather than explicitly guided.

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