list_sinkhole_ingresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Aside from the implicit read-only nature of 'List', it discloses nothing about pagination, result ordering, permission/scope requirements, or behavior when the sinkhole_id does not exist. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the minimum is met. Still missing is any note on how to obtain a sinkhole_id (e.g., via list_sinkholes) and whether results are paginated or complete.

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 both account_id and sinkhole_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the sinkhole is selected 'by sinkhole ID', adding no format examples or ID-acquisition guidance beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('List the ingress rules') plus the scoping entity (a specific DNS sinkhole identified by ID). This distinguishes it from list_sinkholes and get_sinkhole in the sibling set, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives as differentiators.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sinkholes (to discover IDs) or get_sinkhole (for sinkhole details). The agent must infer that this is the drill-down tool for a known sinkhole_id.

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