list_remote_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing result capping and the meaning of `truncated` — a behavioral trait no annotation conveys. It stops short of saying how to retrieve the remainder, but the truncation warning is the key operational fact.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the truncation caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so field-level return documentation isn't required, and the description still summarizes the key fields while covering the one optional parameter's effect. The only gap is that it doesn't suggest what to do when `truncated` is true (e.g., raise `limit`), so an agent must infer the next step.

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 coverage is 100% and `limit` is already documented there as 'Maximum items to return', so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the consequence of `limit` (results are capped) and the resulting `truncated` signal, which gives the parameter meaning the schema doesn't.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (remote networks) and even enumerates the fields returned (id, name, location, active, connector count). It doesn't differentiate from list_resources/list_connectors beyond the name, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent gathers that this is the way to enumerate remote networks. The description does give actionable guidance on interpreting results (limit capping, truncated flag), but never states when to prefer this over sibling list_* tools or any prerequisites.

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