List routers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include gateway and static route data, which hints at payload richness, but says nothing about ordering, filtering behavior, or how pagination termination works beyond 'paged'.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the pagination note. The secondary line about paging is slightly fragmentary but still efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a tool exposing four optional parameters, the description never mentions the status filter or project_id scoping, leaving an agent to rely entirely on the schema for selection logic.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema itself documents limit, marker, and project_id; only 'status' lacks a description. The description mentions limit/marker pagination but never explains the status filter or project scoping, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List the project's routers') and adds scope detail that the routers carry gateway and static routes, which distinguishes it from get_router and from list_subnets/list_networks. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, keeping it below a 5.

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 pagination note ('Paged with limit and marker') implies iterative listing, and the plural resource implies enumeration rather than single-record retrieval versus get_router. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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