list_egress_allowlist

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 covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authorisation requirement ('Requires organisation permission') and the paginated return shape ('total and the current page of entries'). It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining clauses carry usage routing and the permission requirement without padding. The semicolon-joined clause about duplicate creation is slightly tangential but still earns its place as decision guidance.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still notes total plus page contents, and it discloses the permission prerequisite. For a three-parameter read-only list tool this is essentially complete, lacking only explicit pagination-iteration guidance.

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 all three parameters documented including page_size defaults and zero-based current_page, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'filter by domain' loosely maps to the search parameter but adds no syntax, matching rules, or pagination interaction beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Inspect the organisation's trusted custom-host egress allowlist') and reinforces scope with 'without changing destinations'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_egress_allowlist_entry for single-entry inspection, so an agent can separate it from the other four egress siblings by name alone.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: filter by domain before creating duplicates (routing to create_egress_allowlist_entry) and use get_egress_allowlist_entry to inspect a single entry. It stops short of stating when not to use it or any exclusion conditions, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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