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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content detail by naming the returned fields (IP ranges, subnets, routes), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters, or about scoping constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the substantive content (what is returned) is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing redundant.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and the return-content enumeration compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of pagination context and sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 all four parameters (name, page, per_page, label_selector) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (List) and resource (private networks) and even enumerates what is returned (IP ranges, subnets, routes). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling hetzner_get_networks (singular fetch), leaving the list-vs-get routing implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and never references the near-identical sibling hetzner_get_networks or the other list_* tools. The only contextual hint is the raw API endpoint, which does not tell an agent when this tool is preferable.

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