search_interface_configs

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 covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that result ids are constrained to 'wan', 'lan', or 'optN' and are directly consumable by update/delete tools. It does not describe pagination behavior, result limits, or error cases, but these are less critical for a read-only search with an output 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?

Two short, focused sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides high-value integration context about the returned id. It does not repeat schema field names or annotation 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 a read-only search tool, the description plus fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema cover what an agent needs to call it correctly. It even names the downstream consumers of the id, closing an important integration gap. No crucial behavioral or semantic expectation is left unexplained.

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%, so page, page_size, sort_by, and search_term are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only mentions 'filtering and pagination' generically and does not add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 first sentence names the verb (Search), the resource (interface configurations), and two modifiers (filtering and pagination). The second sentence adds a concrete result property (id values 'wan', 'lan', or 'optN') and connects it to update_interface and delete_interface, making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_interface/search_interfaces tools, so it misses a top score.

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 clearly implies a use case: call this tool when you need an interface_id to pass to update_interface or delete_interface. It states what the returned id is used for, which is actionable for an agent. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over search_interfaces or find_interfaces_by_status, or provide 'do not use' guidance.

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