List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it warns that the response may be paginated and tells the agent to compare count against total_available and to treat a truncated field as a single-page signal, which prevents premature conclusions about the whole table.

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 tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the pagination caveat follows immediately, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description appropriately focuses on the pagination fields (count, total_available, truncated) that matter for correct use. It is nearly complete, though it never explains that the tool requires no required parameters or how offset interacts with limit for paging.

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 every parameter (vdom, limit, offset, target, name_contains) is already documented, including the 200 default and 1000 cap. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List firewall service objects with their protocols and ports,' which also hints at what the returned objects contain. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like list_vips or list_policies by resource name, but never explicitly names an alternative or scoping boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative sibling tool (e.g., search_config or find_references) for drilling into services. The sentences about count/total_available and truncated are about interpreting results, not about when this tool is the right choice over another.

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