panorama_get_shared_address_objects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's [READ-ONLY] marker is redundant rather than additive. It does add the concrete config path '/config/shared/address', which provides useful context about what data source is being read. However, it does not disclose response shape, ordering, or pagination behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler: the operation and scope are front-loaded, and the config path is provided as a useful additional detail. Every word earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: the schema covers the firewall parameter fully, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description identifies the exact scope and config location. No output schema is present, but the tool's purpose as a retrieval tool makes the expected return type reasonably inferable.

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 the sole optional 'firewall' parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as when the firewall parameter is necessary, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a precise resource ('shared address objects defined at Panorama level'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from device-level address object tools and shared address group tools among the siblings. Adding the explicit config path '/config/shared/address' reinforces exactly what resource is being read.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when the agent needs shared address objects at the Panorama level, not device or firewall level. It does not explicitly call out alternatives like get_address_objects or panorama_get_shared_address_groups, but the scope is stated clearly enough to imply the correct selection.

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