List failover pools

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: node names are opt-in and exit IPs are never returned, which is a privacy-relevant constraint not covered by annotations.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the primary output and then a key behavioral note. No excess verbiage; front-loaded with the most important information.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, and the read-only nature is annotated. However, all three parameters are undocumented, which is a significant gap for a tool that has optional filtering and inclusion toggles. The description provides a good overview but is incomplete for full tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it only hints at 'node names are opt-in' without explaining config_path or provider_id. This leaves agents unable to understand parameter purposes from either the schema description or the tool description.

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 clearly states the tool returns active, warm, and cold pool counts plus independent-exit statistics, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like list_provider_profiles by focusing on failover pool data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for listing pool counts, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like get_status or run_health_check. There are no exclusions mentioned, so it's clear but not directive.

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