get_firewall_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get'), scopes behavior to custom rules only (so agents know managed rulesets are out of scope), and lists what the response contains. It does not mention error/404 behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action, scope, and return contents; the second supplies the use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only missing nicety is noting that rule_id typically comes from list_firewall_rules, which would aid call chaining — a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 rule_id and zone_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'custom firewall rule' qualifier to clarify what rule_id refers to, without adding format or sourcing details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 details of a specific custom firewall rule by ID') and enumerates the returned contents (filter expression, action, priority). The 'custom... by ID' scope clearly differentiates this from list_firewall_rules and get_ruleset, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

'Useful for investigating why a specific rule triggered a block' gives a concrete scenario with clear context, and the 'specific... by ID' wording implies the contrast with list_firewall_rules. However, no alternative is explicitly named and no when-not condition is stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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