search_wireguard_tunnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'with filtering and pagination', which is a behavioral trait but is also fully evident from the input schema (page, page_size, enabled, search_description). No additional context such as default sorting, limits, or edge cases is provided. This is acceptable but not additive beyond the schema.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action ('Search WireGuard tunnels') and immediately adds the key modifiers ('with filtering and pagination'). There is zero redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions), strong annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly names the resource and operations, and the structured data fills in all necessary details such as parameters, defaults, and return structure. No additional description is needed for an agent to use this 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 parameter (page, enabled, sort_by, page_size, search_description) having a meaningful description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the generic 'filtering and pagination', which is already captured in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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 'Search WireGuard tunnels with filtering and pagination' uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('WireGuard tunnels'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_wireguard_peers and search_wireguard_tunnel_addresses. It also highlights key features (filtering, pagination), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when needing to search/list WireGuard tunnels with optional filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and intuitive given the tool name and sibling tools. The absence of exclusions or explicit alternative references prevents a 5, but the purpose is straightforward enough for a 4.

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