get_network_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read-style operation ('Returns'), scopes the result to a single node, and notes that it wraps NBAPI GetNetworkNode. It does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens for invalid keys, which keeps this at a minimum viable level rather than higher.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the required input, and the wrapped API in a compact and scannable form.

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 single-node getter, the description plus schema provides enough to select and invoke the tool: required key, optional partition, and a discovery route to get_network_nodes. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned fields could help, but it is not necessary 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%, so the baseline is 3. Both NODEKEY and PARTITIONKEY already have meaningful schema descriptions, including the pointer to get_network_nodes for discovering keys. The main description adds little beyond naming NODEKEY, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a concrete resource ('details of a single network node') and the identifying input ('given NODEKEY'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_network_nodes by emphasizing 'single' node retrieval rather than listing.

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 makes the retrieval context clear: use this when you have a NODEKEY and want one node's details. The NODEKEY parameter description additionally points to get_network_nodes for discovering keys, which is a useful routing hint. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the singular/plural contrast with the sibling is reasonably clear.

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