search_openvpn_server_routes

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 clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior or filtering semantics, but it is consistent with the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail, making it optimally concise.

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 low complexity of a search tool, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explicitly explain return values or filtering nuances, but these are covered by the schema and output schema, so the overall context is adequate.

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 all four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, server_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 as 'OpenVPN server routing table entries', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_openvpn_server_connections or get_openvpn_server_status. It is not a tautology and precisely states the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_openvpn_server_connections or get_openvpn_server_status. It lacks any context about preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with related search tools.

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