Get network public address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful context: the required auth scopes, the warning that full/read defaults do not grant networking, and backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability and service 2FA locks. It stops short of describing error/not-found behavior or response shape.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the read scope is front-loaded and the permission/enforcement constraints follow. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter read with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth scopes and enforcement well. It does not address failure modes (missing address, 2FA lock errors) or what the returned attachment/paid-period state contains, leaving a small gap.

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% and the single address_id parameter is fully documented (UUID pattern, source of the value), so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the 'owned' ownership qualifier, which is marginal beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with explicit scope: 'Read one owned public address, attachment and paid-period state.' The 'one owned' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling list_network_public_addresses, and it names the returned state fields, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (explicit networking:read vs networking:manage scopes) but never states when to choose this tool over list_network_public_addresses or get_network_public_binding. Usage is implied by the 'one owned address' scope rather than spelled out.

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