Get isolated network

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that the response includes CIDR and status, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown or wrong-type ID, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences: the first establishes the operation and return shape, the second handles the sibling routing. No filler, and the disambiguation is present but does not crowd out the primary purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations, it covers scope, returned fields and the main disambiguation. The only meaningful gap is what happens when the ID is invalid or of the wrong resource type.

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% and the schema already states the id is a UUID sourced from list_isolated_networks. The description only adds the caveat about IDs that are actually VPC tier subnets, which is a routing hint rather than added parameter semantics.

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 ('Get one standalone isolated network by ID') plus the returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the VPC tier variant by naming get_vpc_tier. An agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('If the ID belongs to a VPC tier subnet, e.g. from a VM in a VPC') and names the alternative tool to use instead. This is exactly the ambiguity that would otherwise cause a wrong call.

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