Read what the appliance is configured to monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states 'READ-ONLY', describes the behavior for each kind, and notes that monitored_networks includes disabled subnets as blind spots. This goes beyond a bare function, though it doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact bullet list for the kind variants. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure makes the options easy to scan without padding.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need to be spelled out. The description covers purpose, use cases, alternatives, read-only nature, and parameter semantics for the required parameter. It omits pagination behavior, but that's minor given the presence of an output schema and the otherwise thorough description.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'kind' parameter with enumerated values and their meaning, but does not explain 'after', 'limit', or 'target_id'. The description adds significant value for the primary parameter but leaves three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Returns the appliance's network CONFIGURATION — what it is set up to watch.' It explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools list_segments_and_zones and get_communication_paths, which report observed data, clearly differentiating its purpose.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: 'Reach for this when inventory looks wrong' and explains why using this tool helps diagnose missing assets in query_assets. It also names alternatives as reporting observed data, providing clear context for choosing this tool.

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