Get network VPN egress options

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the exact auth model (networking:read vs networking:manage, and that full/read defaults do NOT grant networking) plus backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. This is meaningful behavioral context not captured by the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no padding. Minor noise: the 'or networking:manage for changes' clause is irrelevant to a read-only tool and slightly muddies the message, but overall it reads efficiently.

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 no-output-schema, single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, auth scope, and enforcement context. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the return shape or pagination since no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents gateway_id (UUID format, length, pattern). The description adds only indirect meaning via 'the backend enforces ownership,' which hints the gateway must belong to the caller. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Read supported VPN Internet exits and qualification.' It also clarifies scope by stating ordinary VMs and remote connectors aren't implied to be supported. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like get_network_routed_egress, get_network_vpn_summary, or get_network_vpn_gateway.

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?

Implicit usage is clear (discover supported VPN egress exits for a gateway), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools. The scoping note about VMs/connectors being unsupported is helpful but stops short of directing the agent to a sibling.

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