list_firewall_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return ordering ('evaluation order'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, result volume, or auth requirements for a tool that can return many policies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the ordering constraint is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse to be a 5, since brevity here comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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 no-annotation list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys scope and ordering but omits return-shape, pagination, and read-only reassurance, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including filter-expression examples and a format field. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (IPv4 firewall policies), plus a meaningful ordering detail ('evaluation order'). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_firewall_policy, though it does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate itself.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. 'IPv4' implicitly scopes it, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and get_firewall_policy or get_policy_stats.

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