Get networking capabilities

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it specifies the required scopes (networking:read vs networking:manage), warns that full/read defaults do not grant networking, states that backend refusals are authoritative, and cautions 'never infer support from tool presence'. These are substantive behavioral facts an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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 with the read scope, then the field-interpretation caveat, then alternatives, then permissions. Six dense sentences with little waste, though the permissions/enforcement sentence is somewhat tacked on and the whole block is longer than strictly necessary.

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, the description must carry return-value meaning and it does explain the key fields (private_network.available/reason_code, order_availability) and their interpretation. It does not, however, describe the quota or creation-options portions of the payload it claims to return, leaving a modest gap for a zero-param capability read.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument surface for the description to clarify, and the schema is trivially complete with additionalProperties: false.

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+resource: reading account networking availability, quota, creation options and new-server order eligibility. That is more precise than the tautological title, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings (get_networking_features, get_networking_overview, get_networking_topology), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 real routing context: explains that private_network.available/order_availability are about selecting an already-applied network in a NEW order, that false does not block creation/attachment, and that for existing servers one should list/create a network and use list_network_attachment_candidates per service. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement against the other networking get_* tools.

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