List subnets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination contract (limit + marker), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth/permissions or result ordering. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the resource and return fields, then the pagination note. No filler; the only slight waste is that the pagination sentence duplicates schema-documented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with two filter parameters undocumented in both schema and description, an agent cannot confidently use ip_version or network_id filtering without guessing.

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 only 60%: limit, marker and project_id are documented, but ip_version and network_id have no description anywhere. The description repeats limit/marker pagination (already in the schema) and never mentions that results can be filtered by IP version or narrowed to a specific network — the two parameters an agent most needs explained.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the project's subnets') and adds the fields returned (CIDR, gateway, DHCP settings), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_subnet or list_networks, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the name pair.

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 only usage signal is 'Paged with limit and marker' — pagination mechanics, not when-to-use guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over get_subnet (single subnet) or list_networks (parent objects), nor any prerequisite such as needing a project context.

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