Get VPC tier

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating what the response contains (CIDR, gateway, ACL, status, creation date), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention error behavior for a nonexistent tier or whether the VPC `id` must match the tier's parent, so it is not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the dependency hint second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant padding.

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 two-required-UUID read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what fields come back. It omits edge behavior (not-found handling, whether `id` and `tierId` must be consistent), which keeps it out of the top score but is adequate for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including tierId's provenance ('from get_vpc_network'). The description's 'Use the tier IDs from get_vpc_network' largely repeats that schema text rather than adding new semantics such as UUID format quirks or cross-VPC constraints. 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 ('Get') and resource ('one tier (subnet) of a VPC'), and immediately clarifies the unit of retrieval as a single tier rather than the whole VPC. This cleanly separates it from the sibling get_vpc_network / list_vpc_networks without the agent needing to open a 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?

The second sentence gives an actionable prerequisite: tier IDs come from get_vpc_network, which routes the agent to the correct companion call. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use get_vpc_network instead, or what happens with a whole-VPC query), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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