Get network VPN gateway

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses permission requirements (networking:read or networking:manage, with defaults not granting networking) and backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. It also explains response-level caveats such as live-only fields being null until learned and IPsec SA interpretation traps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence is broadly relevant because there is no output schema carrying return-value semantics. However, it is dense and long for a one-parameter read tool, with several fine-grained interpretation notes packed into a single paragraph.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics, permissions, alternatives, and operational caveats an agent needs to call and interpret this read tool correctly. No material behavioral or usage information appears to be missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, including the UUID format and ownership requirement. The description reinforces that the gateway must be owned but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Read one owned VPN gateway") and further scopes the response to current generation, peers, grant candidates, and attachment capability. It also distinguishes the tool from get_network_vpn_peer_history, 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 explicitly names get_network_vpn_peer_history as the alternative for traffic-over-time queries and gives prerequisite guidance for IPsec site requests. It does not explicitly discuss using list_network_vpn_gateways to discover a gateway_id, but the single-resource scope is clear.

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