panorama_verify_bgp_runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'no commit or push is performed.' It adds useful context beyond annotations: the need for a prior manual commit/push and the restriction to runtime state rather than candidate config.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences front-load the operation, then the prerequisite, then the non-mutating scope. There is no filler or redundant rewriting of the schema.

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?

The description states what is checked, the required prerequisite, and the read-only nature, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly against the rich 7-parameter schema. It does not describe what the verification result looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, leaving a small but non-critical ambiguity.

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% and each parameter has a clear description, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds little parameter-level information, though it does confirm 'by serial' and 'expected routes' aligned with serial and expected_prefixes.

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?

Starts with a specific verb 'Verifies' and names the exact resource: BGP runtime peer state and expected routes on the managed firewall via Panorama. This clearly distinguishes it from candidate-config verifiers and from IPsec runtime verification.

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 a concrete prerequisite: a prior manual commit and push to the managed firewall. It explicitly states that candidate configuration is not committed or pushed, which implies when this tool is appropriate versus candidate-only verification, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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