Get network VPN summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description goes further by disclosing the required authorization scopes, the fact that full/read defaults do not grant networking, and backend-enforced ownership, feature availability, and 2FA locks. That is meaningful added behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. The stray mention of 'changes' for a read-only tool is slightly confusing but not contradictory.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then scope exclusion, then permissions, then enforcement. Little waste, though 'including truthful absence' is idiosyncratic phrasing that a reader must parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a 'VPN summary' contains; instead it only hints via 'truthful absence' at how absence is represented. Auth/enforcement context is solid, but the return shape remains underspecified for a tool shipping no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema fully documents network_id (format, UUID pattern, source). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 and resource ('Read the network's VPN summary') and adds a scope exclusion ('Native site-to-site is not supported by this tool set'). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from closely related reads like get_network_vpn_gateway or get_network_vpn_egress_options. Clear purpose but no direct sibling routing.

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?

Provides prerequisites (explicit networking:read vs networking:manage) and a negative scope statement about site-to-site, which gives implied usage context. However, it never says when to choose this over the many other VPN/read siblings (e.g. get_network_vpn_gateway), so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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