search_wireguard_peers

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 it is a safe read operation. The description adds only generic 'filtering and pagination' which is fully covered by the input schema, providing no additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

With complete schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool. There are no hidden gaps; filters and pagination are fully described in the schema, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool searches WireGuard peers, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_wireguard_peer or delete_wireguard_peer, and from search_wireguard_tunnels which covers a different entity.

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 when looking for WireGuard peers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention that searching tunnels is a different operation, so usage context is only implicit.

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