Get private network

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the required scopes (networking:read vs networking:manage), that default full/read grants do not cover networking, and that the backend enforces ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. That is exactly the kind of auth and constraint context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the authorization conditions. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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 the key returned fields, and it covers permissions and backend enforcement. For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single UUID parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, length, 'exact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource'). The description adds no further detail about the identifier, 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+resource ('Read one owned network') and enumerates what the response carries (DHCP reservations, DNS change progress, generation, project_id). The words 'one owned' distinguish it from the sibling list_private_networks 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?

Gives clear context for use: you read a single owned network, and it states the auth scopes needed plus the exclusion that 'full/read defaults do not grant networking'. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g., list_private_networks for discovery) or say when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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