search_haproxy_frontend_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope of listing bind addresses, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior or the format of addresses; the output schema likely covers these details. No contradiction with 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, completely clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording.

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 a simple read-only list operation with pagination parameters, a complete output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient. It could explicitly mention pagination behavior, but the schema and annotations fill the remaining 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%, and each parameter is documented, including parent_id's origin and page/page_size defaults. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'bind addresses configured on an HAProxy frontend', clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like search_haproxy_frontends (which lists frontends) and manage_haproxy_frontend_address (which manages addresses).

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 does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the parent_id parameter description instructs the agent to obtain the frontend ID from search_haproxy_frontends, conveying a clear workflow context without exclusions.

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