List address objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: how each object type is rendered into a single readable value, and how pagination flags (truncated, next_offset, count vs total_available) behave. Some of this overlaps with the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then spends its remaining sentences on information an agent actually needs (value rendering, pagination interpretation). Three short blocks with no filler, though the pagination paragraph is slightly verbose for what it conveys.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: what an address object is, how values are surfaced, and how to read pagination metadata. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 all six parameters (including the vdom/target/limit/offset semantics and the name_contains-vs-values distinction) are already documented in the schema. The description itself only alludes to filtering generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter detail.

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+resource ('List firewall address objects, optionally filtered') and then defines the resource domain by explaining that address objects are the named source/destination values policies reference, which separates it from list_address_groups and list_services. The type-to-value mapping ('a subnet object shows CIDR, an FQDN object shows the hostname') further pins down what this tool returns versus other list_* siblings.

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?

Gives concrete interpretive guidance for this tool's output ('Compare count against total_available before concluding anything about the whole table'), which tells the agent how to use the results correctly. It does not, however, state when to reach for a sibling such as search_config or list_address_groups in the description body itself. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives at the description level.

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