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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics about criticality and its null-as-medium default, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or the auto-pagination behavior described in 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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter guidance last; nothing is padded. The criticality sentence is the one element of questionable relevance to an invocation-time description.

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 four-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is being listed and how to filter it. It does not describe what a returned network record contains, which is the main gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 page, per_page, search and feature_class are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description confirms the two filter modes but also discusses 'criticality', which is not a parameter of this tool, adding a term the agent may mistakenly try to pass as a filter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and goes further by defining what a network is ('named groupings of features bound to one feature class'), which implicitly separates it from list_infrastructure_feature_classes and list_infrastructure_zones. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 closing sentence tells the agent how to narrow results ('Filter by feature_class code or text search'), which implies usage. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over list_infrastructure_feature_classes or list_infrastructure_assets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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