list_address_list_entries

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: list_filter is exact (including trailing spaces), address/comment filters are partial matches, and static_only excludes dynamic child entries. This helps the agent understand subtle filtering semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by concise bullet-like notes. Every line adds useful information, and the most important semantics are front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly complete. It addresses the key behavioral nuances of filters and static entries. It could have briefly explained dynamic_only/disabled_only semantics or the device parameter, but these are relatively minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully explains list_filter, address_filter, comment_filter, and static_only, but it leaves dynamic_only, disabled_only, device, and family unexplained. Family has an enum, and the boolean names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the coverage is incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('firewall address list entries'), and the scope (IPv4 or IPv6). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/get/remove_address_list_entry, which are obviously different operations.

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 for when to use this tool: it lists address list entries and describes how filtering works. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the distinction from single-entry retrieval and mutation siblings is clear enough from the verb and resource.

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