Get network ACL list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavior beyond that — no note on not-found behavior, no indication of what the returned ACL list contains.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler and the key qualifier ('by ID') stated up front. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what an ACL list record includes, and it gives no hint about error behavior for a nonexistent ID.

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 single parameter is already documented as a UUID sourced from list_network_acl_lists. The description's 'by ID' restates the schema without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one network ACL list') and narrows the scope to a single item by ID, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling list_network_acl_lists. It does not explicitly name the list sibling as the source, but the singular-vs-plural distinction makes the intent readable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals a detail lookup after enumeration, and the schema hints the ID comes from list_network_acl_lists. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_network_acl_lists_by_vpc or the rule-level siblings, nor what happens if the ID is unknown.

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