search_crls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context—'configured on pfSense' only scopes the search to system configuration. It does not mention pagination behavior or return characteristics, but output schema covers return values. No contradictions.

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 immediately and accurately conveys the tool's purpose. There is zero redundancy or filler, earning a top score for structure.

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 simple read-only search function with an output schema available. The description sufficiently covers the resource and scope, and the schema fills in parameter details. It could benefit from an explicit pointer to sibling search tools, but the current description is adequate for its low complexity.

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% description coverage for all three parameters (page, page_size, search_term) with clear explanations. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resource 'Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs)' with a scope qualifier 'configured on pfSense'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_crl, delete_crl, and search_certificates.

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 for searching CRLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_certificates or search_certificate_authorities. The usage context is inferred from the resource name 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.