list_origin_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, ordering, or account-level permissions. For a list operation with unspecified outputs, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

An eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter list tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter), and the description states its high-level function and scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the response shape, pagination, and expected result format are undocumented, leaving an agent to call the tool without knowing what to expect.

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% — account_id is fully documented with type, maxLength, and description. The description's 'for an account' loosely aligns with the parameter, but adds no formatting, validation, or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('load balancer origin pools'), and a scope ('for an account'). The 'load balancer' qualifier helps distinguish origin pools from related sibling resources like list_load_balancers, list_load_balancer_monitors, and get_origin_rules, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies usage — use it when you need origin pools for an account — but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set containing several load balancer list/get tools, a routing pointer would add value.

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