search_freeradius_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clearly covered. The description adds behavioral details about filtering and pagination, but does not elaborate on return structure or search semantics, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and core features without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With read-only annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool. It could be more explicit about return values or edge cases, but these are not necessary given the structured metadata.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond summarizing filtering and pagination, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the action (Search), the resource (FreeRADIUS clients/NAS devices), and key capabilities (filtering and pagination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_freeradius_users by naming the specific resource and operation.

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 clear resource context and implies this tool is for querying FreeRADIUS client objects, differentiating it from create/update/delete client tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity and read-only annotation offer sufficient guidance for typical use.

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