list_network_loadbalancers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful scoping context ('all' NLBs in a datacenter) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response shape, or default depth. This is adequate but not especially transparent.

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: 'List all network load balancers (NLB) in a data center.' Every word is functional, with no filler or redundancy.

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 operation with a fully described input schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning return/pagination behavior, but 'list' makes the basic return value inferable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (datacenter_id, depth, filters), including details like nesting depth and contains-match filter semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List all network load balancers (NLB) in a data center' — a specific verb ('list'), a specific resource ('network load balancers/NLB'), and a clear scope ('in a data center'). The 'NLB' qualifier and 'all' help distinguish it from sibling tools like get_network_loadbalancer and list_application_loadbalancers.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need all network load balancers within a datacenter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_application_loadbalancers or list_loadbalancers. Usage context is present but exclusion/alternative guidance is absent.

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