get_network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what is returned, whether a missing ID errors or returns null, or whether the network object includes members/subnets/routes.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects missing content rather than tight editing of rich 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 single-entity read with no nested objects and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no hint of the returned network shape or fields, which one sentence could have supplied.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the description only implies the parameter is an ID without stating format, type, or where the ID comes from. It adds essentially no meaning the agent could not infer from the parameter name "id".

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?

"Get a single network by ID" states a specific verb (get), a specific resource (network), and cardinality (single), which cleanly separates it from list/create/update/delete network siblings. It stops short of 5 only because it adds no distinguishing detail beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the list or create siblings, and no note on what happens if the ID does not exist. The phrase "by ID" implies a lookup pattern but leaves selection between this and other retrieval tools to inference.

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