Get network routed egress

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world. The description adds value beyond them: the exact permission scope required, the fact that default/read roles do NOT grant networking, and that the backend enforces ownership, feature availability and 2FA locks. These are meaningful operational constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the read scope before the permission constraints. Tight overall; the only minor cost is the 'or networking:manage for changes' phrase, which is irrelevant noise on a read-only getter.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (NAT/internet access, public address, qualification state) and covers the authorization/enforcement model. Complete enough to call correctly; only the missing explicit pointer to set_network_routed_egress keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single network_id parameter, so the schema already carries the format and provenance requirements (lowercase UUID from an owned resource). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (read) and resource (this network's routed egress) and enumerates the retrieved facets: NAT/internet access, public address, and qualification state. This distinguishes it from generic read siblings like get_networking_overview, though it never names the natural counterpart set_network_routed_egress, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite (explicit networking:read, not covered by full/read defaults), which is genuine usage guidance. However it names no alternative and the clause 'networking:manage for changes' is odd for a read-only tool, leaving when-to-use vs set_network_routed_egress or get_network_vpn_egress_options to inference.

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