retrieve_firewall

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint and account scope, but it does not add auth requirements, rate-limit behavior, or return-format details beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 two short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the HTTP endpoint appended compactly. There is no redundant or empty prose.

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-resource retrieval with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the identifier, and account scope. It does not describe the returned firewall object or clarify why pagination/orderBy parameters exist on a single-resource GET, but those are minor gaps given the structured fields.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that retrieval is by firewallId, but it adds no additional semantics for name, page, size, orderBy, x-trace-id, or instanceIds beyond the schema.

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: 'Get specific firewall by its id.' The endpoint '[GET /v1/firewalls/{firewallId}]' reinforces that this is a single-record retrieval, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as retrieve_firewall_list, create_firewall, delete_firewall, patch_firewall, and put_firewall.

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 only implied by 'specific firewall by its id' and 'on your account.' The description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of retrieve_firewall_list or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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