get_egress_allowlist_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't: a 404 on missing entries and an 'organisation permission' authorization requirement. Return shape is only sketched because an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: what it reads, when to use it, then returns/permission. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place with no filler.

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, the definition covers purpose, usage timing, failure mode, and authorization, and an output schema already documents the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the UUID format and even points at list_egress_allowlist/create_egress_allowlist_entry as sources. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the id, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Read one organisation egress allowlist entry') plus the fields it exposes (trusted domain, description, audit fields). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_egress_allowlist, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 usage moment: 'Use this before changing or deleting a destination', which tells the agent when to reach for this read tool ahead of update/delete. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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