List egress rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered outside the description. The description adds only the scope note that results span all isolated networks, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior. Adding a modest amount beyond a complete annotation set warrants a 3.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical gloss on 'egress' is worth the words. It is efficient but so brief that it leaves the sibling routing unaddressed, which keeps it off the top mark.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it: what it returns (a list of egress rules), across what scope, and how to page. The only missing piece is sibling routing, which is a usage-guideline issue rather than a completeness one.

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%: 'page' is documented as 1-indexed and 'pageSize' carries its default and 500 maximum, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about paging or how pageSize interacts with fetching further results, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus resource ('List outbound (egress) traffic rules') and glosses 'egress' as outbound, and the phrase 'across your isolated networks' scopes it to the unfiltered, all-networks case. It does not name the closely related list_egress_rules_by_network or get_egress_rule, so the boundary with those siblings is left to inference.

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 phrase 'across your isolated networks' weakly implies this is the broad/unfiltered list variant, which is the right cue for choosing it over list_egress_rules_by_network, but that alternative is never named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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