list_public_exposure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-verdict scoping, but reveals nothing about result shape, pagination, or what a 'verdict' means — modest added value.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two compact value lists; the enumerated lists are long but each token is informative. No filler prose.

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 output schema and all-optional params, the description adequately defines the two filter dimensions. It falls slightly short on the limit parameter and on how verdicts map to returned fields, but covers enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden. It enumerates all valid states and typical kind values, which is genuine compensation, though it never mentions the limit parameter's default or meaning.

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: list resources filtered by public-endpoint verdict. An agent can identify the operation, but the description never contrasts this with siblings like scan_infrastructure or infra_summary, so differentiation 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?

It states the default filter behavior (all_networks and all_networks_with_denies), which implies when results appear, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing against the 15 sibling tools and no prerequisites.

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