List virtual IPs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding real behavioral context the annotations lack: how to read `count` vs `total_available` and what `truncated` means for paging.

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 what a VIP is, then the storage detail, then the pagination caveat; no filler. Slightly more sprawling than a single tight sentence, but each clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the only missing piece — pagination semantics — so an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of explicit routing advice against the many sibling list_* tools.

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 vdom, limit, offset and target are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List virtual IPs") plus domain grounding: "destination NAT rules" that map an external address/port to an internal one. This is enough to separate it from siblings like list_address_objects and list_policies without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource described, and the pagination note tells the agent when the result is partial, but no sibling tool is named as an alternative and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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