List network public addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing the required scopes (networking:read), that full/read defaults do NOT grant networking, and that the backend enforces ownership, feature availability and service 2FA locks. That is genuine authorization and enforcement context beyond structured data.

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 operation and its payload, followed by the permission caveat. Slightly muddied by the clause 'or networking:manage for changes', which is odd for a read-only listing and marginally dilutes the front-loading.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it summarizes the returned content (addresses, account limits, target support, purchase availability) and the permission/enforcement model. Only the routing relative to sibling list/get tools is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description introduces no parameters and needs to add nothing here.

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 ('Read owned paid public addresses') and enumerates the extra payload (account limits, target support, purchase availability), which distinguishes it from the singular get_network_public_address. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

The description gives an access precondition ('Requires explicit networking:read for reads') but never says when to choose this list tool over get_network_public_address, list_network_attachment_candidates, or the binding/attach operations. Usage is implied by the word 'list' rather than stated.

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