Extra Network Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description is minimal, only stating the HTTP endpoint and the action. It does not disclose what 'detailed metadata' includes, potential errors (e.g., item not found), or any side effects (though likely read-only). The description adds little beyond what the schema and title already imply.

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 very concise, a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and the underlying API endpoint. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential purpose, though it could benefit from a little more behavioral context.

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 tool is simple (2 required parameters, no output schema), and the schema fully covers parameter semantics. However, the lack of output description or behavioral details (e.g., what metadata is returned) means the description is minimally sufficient but not complete. It covers the essential purpose but leaves out return value details.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it is adequate because the schema already documents 'name' and 'page'.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed metadata for one extra network item, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('extra network item'). The title 'Extra Network Detail' is similar to sibling 'sdnext_extra_network_details', but the description's focus on 'one item' distinguishes it from the plural 'details' tool.

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 description implies usage (get details for one item) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like sdnext_extra_network_details (which likely lists multiple) or sdnext_list_extra_networks. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for a simple lookup tool.

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