get_r_asset_asset_firewall_policy_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET), the read-only nature implied by 'Retrieve', and where filters/pagination/headers go. However, it omits potential error behavior, authentication requirements, or requiredness of the ID, though the existing output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and endpoint, then give the only necessary invocation details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple GET-by-ID endpoint, the description covers the core invocation pattern and the output schema handles return values. However, without annotations, the absence of explicit requiredness, exact query parameter names, and any mention of the body parameter leaves moderate gaps for an agent that needs to call this correctly.

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?

The schema is entirely generic with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers, giving the agent meaningful placement guidance. Still, it does not name specific filter or pagination parameters or clarify the body parameter's role.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve asset firewall policy' backed by the exact endpoint `GET /r/asset/asset_firewall_policy/{id}`. The `_id` suffix and `{id}` placeholder clearly distinguish this singular resource tool from the sibling `get_r_asset_asset_firewall_policy` collection 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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve an asset firewall policy by ID, with IDs placed in path_params and filters/pagination in query. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular `{id}` resource still makes the intended usage obvious.

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