search_subnets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are limited to 10 by default and max 50, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain matching semantics (e.g., exact vs partial, case sensitivity) or whether the search is scoped to a specific VLAN/VRF/location, leaving notable gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a succinct context note and parameter explanations. It is mostly efficient, though the default limit of 10 is mentioned twice (in the CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION line and in the limit description), creating minor redundancy.

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 has only two parameters, an output schema (so return values need not be described), and a behavioral limit disclosure, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is clearer guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling search/detail tools, and a bit more on how the query is interpreted.

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?

The input schema only provides titles and a default for limit, with no descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics: query is a search term for CIDR/description/etc., and limit is the maximum results with a default of 10 and max of 50. This fully compensates for the schema description coverage of 0%.

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 clearly states the tool searches subnets by CIDR, description, or other criteria, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_addresses and search_hostname by focusing on subnets, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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 this tool is for searching subnets via the stated query fields, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like get_subnet_details or search_addresses. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation, so usage context is only implied.

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