search_openvpn_csos

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 that the tool supports filtering and pagination, which is consistent with the schema, but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details beyond that. It explains what CSOs are, which is contextually useful but not behavioral.

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 compact, with the first sentence stating the tool's purpose and the second providing useful background on CSOs. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple search operation with annotations indicating it is read-only and non-destructive. The schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, so the description, while brief, is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each of the 6 parameters already described. The description mentions filtering and pagination generically but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Search OpenVPN Client Specific Overrides (CSOs) with filtering and pagination,' naming the exact action and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like manage_openvpn_cso and search_openvpn_servers by focusing on CSO search.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool—whenever you need to search or list OpenVPN CSOs—by explicitly stating its purpose. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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