List DHCP leases

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: both filters silently drop rows, and a mistyped interface yields an empty result indistinguishable from an appliance issuing no leases. That is exactly the kind of hidden-behavior disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the single most consequential caveat. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a low-complexity, all-optional list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how filters can mislead, and which response field to check before drawing conclusions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by cross-referencing filtered_out and warning that both filter parameters drop rows without signalling it. It adds interpretive meaning the parameter descriptions alone do not convey, though it does not touch limit/offset/target semantics.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List current DHCP leases issued by the appliance'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like list_wifi_clients or get_arp_table. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance for interpreting results ('Read filtered_out before concluding anything from a short list') and explains the trap of a typo'd interface name producing an empty list. It does not, however, name a sibling tool or say when a different listing tool would be the better choice.

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