List service private ports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: explicit networking:read scope not granted by full/read defaults, backend ownership enforcement, feature-availability gating, and service 2FA locks. The phrase "or networking:manage for changes" sits slightly awkwardly against readOnlyHint and could momentarily confuse an agent, but the leading "Read" makes the actual mode unambiguous.

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, front-loaded with what is read and against what key, followed by permission and backend-enforcement constraints. Dense but every sentence carries usable information; only the "changes" clause is arguably wasted on a 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 one parameter at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: the semantics of the key and the authorization/enforcement conditions. It names the payload content (ports and order attachment recovery state) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: it identifies the single argument as a service order number that must be owned by the caller, which is more than the pattern-only schema conveys. It does not give format or example values, so it stops short of a 5.

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 private ports and order attachment recovery state") scoped to "one owned service order number". This distinguishes it from the network-scoped sibling list_private_network_ports, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it.

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 supplies a real precondition (networking:read scope, ownership, feature availability, 2FA locks) that tells the agent when the call will succeed. However it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_private_network_ports or list_network_attachment_candidates, leaving tool selection to inference.

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