search_firewall_schedules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that filtering and pagination are supported, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as default sorting or result limits, which are already in the schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose. No redundant information is included, and it earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 simple search functionality, the presence of annotations, a complete parameter schema with descriptions, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by mentioning that search_term filters by name/description, but that is already in the schema.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The general mention of 'filtering and pagination' in the description echoes the schema but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 identifies the tool as searching firewall schedules, with filtering and pagination mentioned. It distinguishes from other search tools by the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_schedule_time_ranges or other schedule-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_schedule_time_ranges or create_firewall_schedule. It implies usage for searching schedules but offers no exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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