list_teamnet_virtual_networks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, filter behavior, or what the response contains. For a list endpoint, details like pagination and result shape are meaningful behavioral context that is missing.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the resource, and the scope are all present. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 is sufficient for basic selection and invocation given the single parameter and full schema coverage. However, with no output schema and no mention of pagination or response characteristics, an agent has limited information about what invoking this tool will return, which leaves a noticeable gap for a list operation.

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 the only parameter, account_id, is already described as 'The account ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the schema's complete coverage, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('team virtual networks'), and scopes it to an account. This clearly separates it from the singular 'get_teamnet_virtual_network' sibling and from related but different resources like 'list_teamnet_routes'.

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 phrase 'for an account' implies account-level usage, which aligns with the required account_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the singular get_teamnet_virtual_network or the related list_teamnet_routes, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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