List egress rules by network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no ordering, no behavior for an unknown networkId, no hint about result shape — and largely restates the title.

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 wasted words, and the scoping constraint appears immediately. It is efficient but bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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 simple paginated read with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It is missing any note about result contents or pagination workflow, which matters slightly because 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%, with page, pageSize, and networkId all documented including defaults and the 500 max. The description only echoes that networkId scopes the call, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource plus a scope qualifier ('egress rules for a specific isolated network'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_egress_rules that is not network-scoped. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can deduce it should call this when it has an isolated network and wants that network's egress rules. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_egress_rules or get_egress_rule, and no mention of prerequisites such as the network needing to exist.

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