Network List Password Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavior is the quoting convention for returned names, and it says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for a list over an open-world account.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is partly redundant with the output schema, which already defines quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, so it doesn't fully earn 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?

With an output schema present, return-field detail is not required, and annotations cover safety, so the description is serviceable. But it leaves the primary filter (`pattern`) and any result-limiting behavior undocumented, which is a real gap for a list tool over an open-world account.

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?

At 67% coverage the description should compensate, but the most important filter, `pattern`, is never explained in either the description or the schema. The phrase 'in the account or database' only loosely hints at the `database` scope, and the schema text attached to `database`/`schema_name` describes quoting behavior rather than what those parameters filter.

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 (List) and resource (password security policies) plus the scope (account or database), which is enough to separate it from network_describe_password_policy by the list/describe convention. It never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on convention rather than statement.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative network_describe_password_policy for single-policy details. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step and that describe_* is the follow-up.

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