list_nat_gateways

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already informs the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful scope constraint 'in a data center', but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, response size limits, or the fact that filters can silently return empty results. This is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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 exactly what the tool does. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool, the description combined with the detailed input schema (required datacenter_id, depth range, filter warning) is largely sufficient. There is no output schema, but the nature of the operation makes return semantics predictable, and the description covers the core purpose without needing to explain every edge case.

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 description coverage is 100%, with datacenter_id, depth, and filters all described in the schema. The description's 'in a data center' phrase reinforces datacenter_id but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('NAT gateways'), and the scope ('in a data center'), making it straightforward to distinguish from sibling tools like get_nat_gateway (single item) and list_nat_gateway_rules (rules of a gateway).

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 makes the usage context obvious: when you need all NAT gateways within a specific data center. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_nat_gateway for a single gateway), but the scope is clear and there are no confusing exclusions or conflicting guidance.

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