get_network_node

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only the implementation note "(wraps NBAPI GetNetworkNode)", which is not behaviorally useful to an agent — it says nothing about error handling for missing nodes or the shape of the returned details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. The parenthetical wrapper note is mild filler but doesn't disrupt the structure.

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 read-only getter with fully documented parameters this is adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what 'details' a node actually contains, leaving the agent guessing at the response.

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%, including the discovery tip for NODEKEY, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's "for a given NODEKEY" adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ("Returns") and resource ("details of a single network node") keyed on NODEKEY, which cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_network_nodes. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it falls just shy of the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied by "a single network node" — retrieve one node versus the plural listing — but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The routing hint to get_network_nodes lives in the schema, not the description.

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