Network List Network Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that each row carries quoted_name and conditionally quoted_qualified_name, which is useful output context, but says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or result volume for an openWorldHint=true listing.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence spends most of its length describing return columns that a dedicated output schema already conveys. It is short, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

The agent has a strong structured foundation: full annotations, a formal output schema, and a single optional string parameter. The description supplies the quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name behavior and names the returned resource. The main open gap is pattern semantics, but with a public output schema and only one optional parameter, the overall package is complete for a low-complexity list tool.

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 single optional parameter 'pattern' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Whether it is an exact match, a SQL LIKE pattern, or a regex is left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess or trial-and-error.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List network policies configured in the account.' An agent can distinguish this from network_describe_network_policy by the 'list' verb, though the description never names the sibling to draw that contrast explicitly.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus network_describe_network_policy or network_list_network_rules, and no mention of prerequisites or scope constraints. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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