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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required auth scope and the shape of what is returned (range, gateway, connected machines, quota). It stops short of covering pagination, result limits, or ordering, which are the remaining unknowns for a list operation.

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?

A single ~20-word sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and then the scope. There is no filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so reasonably well by naming four returned fields plus the quota. It could be slightly more complete by indicating whether results are paginated or bounded, but the essentials for calling it are present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add or omit on this dimension.

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 names the specific resource (the account's private networks) and enumerates the fields returned (range, gateway, connected machines, quota), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_vpc, which returns a single network, leaving that routing distinction to be inferred from the name.

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 only usage-adjacent statement is 'Scope: vms.read', which is an authorization requirement rather than guidance on when to call this instead of get_vpc or list_vms. The listing intent is implied by the name and the plural resource, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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