search_static_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning filtering and pagination, which indicates the tool returns a subset of results in pages. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail sorting or client-side filter 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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simple search nature, an output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state that results are lists or that it's read-only, but such details are implied by annotations and the output schema, leaving minimal gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'filtering and pagination'; it does not elaborate on which fields are filterable or how pagination works, relying on the schema for details.

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 'static routes' and adds scope 'with filtering and pagination'. This distinguishes it from other search tools like search_crls or search_ntp_time_servers, which target different resources.

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 usage for querying static routes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_gateway_status for gateway health, or search_gateways for gateway configuration). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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