search_freeradius_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the prerequisite that the FreeRADIUS package must be installed, which is useful context about potential failure. It does not add other behavioral details like error conditions or side effects, but given the annotations, the bar is lower.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search FreeRADIUS users'). The second sentence about the package prerequisite is valuable and concise. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 high schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool. It adds the prerequisite about the FreeRADIUS package, which is an important operational detail. It does not explicitly discuss sibling alternatives, but the tool name and schema descriptions largely fill that gap.

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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term) having descriptions. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; 'filtering and pagination' merely summarizes the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 resource 'FreeRADIUS users', making its purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_freeradius_user and search_freeradius_clients by naming the exact resource and action. Mentioning 'filtering and pagination' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 context that the FreeRADIUS package must be installed, which is a prerequisite for using the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the resource name and sibling context make the intended use obvious. The prerequisite is a useful usage hint that goes beyond simple function naming.

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