Get network VPN gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: explicit networking:read scope (with full/read defaults insufficient), plus backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. The 'or networking:manage for changes' clause is slightly off for a read-only tool but the permission surface is well disclosed.

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, purpose and returned data front-loaded before the permission constraints. Efficient, though the trailing 'or networking:manage for changes' is mildly surplus for a read-only operation.

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-param read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what is read, what it returns, and the auth/enforcement context. Only minor gap is a lack of explicit disambiguation against sibling read tools.

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% — the single gateway_id is fully documented as a lowercase UUID returned by an owned resource. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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 ('Read one owned VPN gateway') and enumerates the returned facets (current generation, device peers, grant candidates, attachment capability). The singular 'one owned' distinguishes it from the sibling list_network_vpn_gateways without needing 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?

The scoping phrase 'one owned VPN gateway' implies usage for a known gateway_id, and the auth clause hints at required scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as list_network_vpn_gateways for enumeration, so guidance is only implied.

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