List private networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the list may contain networks mid-deletion, an empty result is not proof that servers lack private networking, and the backend enforces ownership, feature availability and service 2FA locks. The explicit auth scope requirement is also non-obvious context. The only soft spot is the 'or networking:manage for changes' phrasing on a tool that performs no changes.

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 core purpose, then the two non-obvious behavioral facts and the permission requirement. Three dense sentences, all carrying weight, though the permission sentence mixes a write-scope clause that is irrelevant to this read-only tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant gaps: what can appear in the list, how to read an empty result, and the required auth scope. Return item structure is left unstated, but that is a minor omission for a simple enumerator.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter or pagination parameters.

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 ('List owned private networks') and even narrows the scope by noting it includes entries still awaiting verified cleanup. The scope is unambiguous relative to the port/security-group siblings, though no sibling tool is named explicitly for contrast.

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?

Implied usage is present through the empty-list guidance ('a starting state for creating an approved network'), which tells the agent how to interpret results. However, it never says when to use this instead of get_private_network, get_networking_overview, or list_network_attachment_candidates, and the 'networking:read for reads or networking:manage for changes' clause is boilerplate that doesn't map cleanly onto a read-only list tool.

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