search_dhcp_address_pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds 'filtering and pagination' as behavioral context, but this is also evident from the schema. No additional details about return behavior, limits, or side effects are provided, but none contradict the annotations.

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, focused sentence of nine words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word is necessary. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of a rich output schema, and annotations confirming read-only behavior, the description is sufficient. It correctly identifies the resource and the key capabilities (filtering, pagination), and the schema fills in all parameter details. No critical context is missing.

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 its four parameters, including meanings and examples (e.g., parent_id filter). The description only generically mentions 'filtering and pagination' without adding syntax or format details, so it adds no value beyond the schema. 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') with a clear resource ('DHCP server address pools') and explicitly mentions filtering and pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_dhcp_leases or create_dhcp_address_pool. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage through its action and resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., search_dhcp_leases) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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