search_openvpn_server_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'active' filter scope but does not disclose behavior like pagination defaults or filtering semantics; acceptable given annotations, but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and the resource ('active OpenVPN server connections'). No filler or redundant wording.

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 read-only annotation, full schema parameter descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It adequately positions the tool's purpose, though it lacks usage guidance, which is already scored separately.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, server_id) with types and defaults, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource 'active OpenVPN server connections', making its core function clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_openvpn_server_status by focusing on connection records rather than overall status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as get_openvpn_server_status or get_openvpn_status. The description implies a search use case but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.

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