search_ipsec_phase2s

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the safety profile, and the description adds only that the search supports filtering and pagination. It does not disclose whether this returns saved configuration entries versus live tunnel state, which is a meaningful behavioral distinction given the sibling get_ipsec_child_sa_status, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 names the action, the resource (with clarifying parenthetical), and the key capabilities. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the tool definition covers most operational needs for an agent. The main gap is that 'entries' does not clarify whether these are configuration objects or live tunnel state, which matters given the sibling get_ipsec_child_sa_status tool.

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%, with all six parameters (mode, page, ikeid, sort_by, page_size, search_description) individually documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's generic 'filtering and pagination' phrasing adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('IPsec Phase 2 (Child SA / tunnel) entries') and states the scope ('with filtering and pagination'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_ipsec_phase2_encryptions and search_ipsec_phase1s by naming the exact object type being searched.

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 this is the tool for searching/listing Phase 2 configuration entries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_ipsec_child_sa_status for live tunnel status or search_ipsec_phase2_encryptions for encryption proposals. No exclusions or alternative-tool guidance is provided.

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