DLP network printers report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add extra behavioral context. It adds that pagination is supported and that the output includes custom group counts per printer, which is useful beyond the annotation metadata.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main function and output without any filler. It is concise and well-structured, earning the highest score.

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?

For a simple read-only report with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope and pagination behavior. It could potentially note the distinction from USB printer reports, but the title and purpose clarity already handle that differentiation.

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?

All three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning—it only mentions pagination, which is already described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves all network printers deployed in DLP policies and specifies the key output (number of custom groups per printer). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling reports like dlp_network_usb_printer_report, which target USB printers instead.

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 provides clear context—use this when you need network printers in DLP policies with custom group associations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection among similar report tools.

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