search_ipsec_phase2_encryptions

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

The description adds only 'filtering and pagination', which is already evident from the schema and tool name. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as access requirements, rate limits, or the nature of results beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) already communicate. No contradiction exists, but the value added beyond annotations is minimal.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 nature of the tool, the presence of a full output schema, and complete annotation coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what an encryption entry is or how this search relates to parent Phase 2 objects, which could aid selection among many similar search tools. The lack of context about the parent_id filter creates a clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the concept of filtering and pagination. Thus, the schema carries the semantic load, and the description adds no meaningful enhancement.

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 identifies the resource as 'IPsec Phase 2 encryption entries', distinguishing it from related sibling tools like search_ipsec_phase1_encryptions, search_ipsec_phase2s, and CRUD operations. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context through 'with filtering and pagination', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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