search_dhcp_leases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the generic 'advanced filtering'—no mention of pagination behavior, client-side filtering, or result limits. This is acceptable but not enriched; the description does not 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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. This is an ideal length given that the schema and output schema carry detailed information.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with rich schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource and general capability. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the client-side 'search_term' behavior, but these are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficient for operational context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only states 'advanced filtering' generically. The schema's detailed parameter descriptions carry the full semantic weight.

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 'Search DHCP leases with advanced filtering' uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('DHCP leases'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_dhcp_static_mappings or search_dhcp_address_pools. The phrase 'advanced filtering' hints at the rich parameter set without overcomplicating the core purpose.

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 the resource name ('DHCP leases') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as search_dhcp_static_mappings or search_dhcp_address_pools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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