List network VPN gateways

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description must add more — and it does: no private keys or one-time configurations are returned, scopes are enforced explicitly, and the backend enforces ownership, feature availability and 2FA locks. Missing only operational details like pagination or result ordering.

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 resource and returned scope, then data-safety, then authorization — a sensible priority order in three tight sentences. The permission sentence is slightly boilerplate-heavy but still earns its place for a scoped read.

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, no parameters and simple annotations, the description carries the remaining burden: it names the returned entities and explicitly excludes sensitive material. It stops short of describing result shape or size, which would fully close the loop.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics is a non-issue and the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related because there is nothing to add.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List owned VPN gateways') with added scope ('their device peers and safe status'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_network_vpn_gateway and from get_network_vpn_summary. An agent can tell what it enumerates without opening any schema.

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 states the permission context needed to use it (explicit networking:read vs networking:manage, and that full/read defaults do not grant networking), which is useful pre-invocation guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as get_network_vpn_gateway or list_network_appliances, and the 'networking:manage for changes' clause is left ambiguous on a read-only listing tool.

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