search_openvpn_client_export_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether it returns only enabled configurations, how pagination works, or whether a server_id is required for filtering. It merely restates the search intent without enriching the behavior.

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, concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the verb and object. It contains no fluff or repetition. While it could be slightly more informative, it is appropriately sized for a simple search operation and does not waste words.

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 output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers the essentials for a search tool. However, it lacks context about its relationship to the sibling export_openvpn_client_config and does not explain when a user would need this search. The existence of many related search/export tools makes this missing guidance a notable 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with all four parameters described adequately. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a well-documented schema. The word 'available' hints at filtering but is too vague to count as added semantic value.

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') and resource ('OpenVPN client export configurations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_openvpn_client_config (which exports) and search_openvpn_clients (which searches clients, not configs). The phrase 'available' adds scope, implying a read-only listing of what can be exported.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using this search to find configurations before exporting, nor any exclusion criteria. The description is purely a statement of action with no contextual usage direction.

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