list_secondary_dns_acls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' transparently signals a read-only enumeration, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, response shape, ordering, or what an ACL consists of. Adequate for a simple read operation, but minimal.

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?

Eight words with no filler, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and for a single-parameter list tool this length is appropriate rather than under-specified.

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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is near minimum viable: an agent can infer it should pass account_id and receive a list of ACLs. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves pagination behavior, the shape of returned ACL objects, and the choice between list and get variants unaddressed.

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%, so the single account_id parameter is already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'for an account' mildly reinforces that account_id identifies the owning account, but the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('secondary DNS ACLs') with account scoping, so an agent can tell it apart from same-prefix siblings like list_secondary_dns_peers and list_secondary_dns_tsigs by resource name alone. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the singular get_secondary_dns_acl or other list variants, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say 'use this to enumerate all ACLs while get_secondary_dns_acl fetches one', mention account-level prerequisites, or note any exclusions. The only context, 'for an account', is scope rather than usage direction.

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