Get network VPN summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: 'truthful absence' semantics, the exact permission scopes required (networking:read vs networking:manage, with defaults not granting access), and backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability and 2FA locks. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted filler; the sibling list and permission details each carry useful routing and auth information. Slightly dense in enumerating sibling tool names, but every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only summary tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, permissions, and backend guards. No output schema exists and the description only lightly characterizes what the summary contains, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents network_id (UUID format, source). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 the network's VPN summary') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('including truthful absence'). It distinguishes itself from the management siblings by naming create_network_vpn_peer/set_network_vpn_site_options as the place where connected locations are managed, positioning this as the read-only counterpart.

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 directs the agent to the mutation siblings for site-to-site management and spells out the required scopes, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts against the equally read-oriented siblings like get_network_vpn_gateway, list_network_vpn_gateways, or get_network_vpn_egress_options, so the routing guidance is partial.

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