list_virtual_services

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result cannot be paged or filtered, it carries no health score, and it returns all VSes in one call. This is exactly the operational caveat an agent needs before committing to a call.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape and limits, then the routing hint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 the description need not document return structure in depth, yet it correctly flags the key limitations (no paging, no filtering, no health score) that the schema cannot convey. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

Only one optional parameter (controller) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the controller argument; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List Virtual Services on the AVI Controller') and immediately scopes what is returned (Name, Enabled, VIP, short UUID). An agent can distinguish this bulk-listing tool from the single-VS lookup sibling without opening either 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?

Explicitly states the sequencing: 'Use this before drilling into one VS with get_virtual_service_status,' naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. No inference required.

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