get_load_balancer_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the composite nature of the call: it aggregates listeners, pools/members, and health monitors in one response, which tells an agent this is a heavier read than a single-resource fetch. Read-only semantics are implied by "Get"/"Shows", but permissions, not-found behavior, and cost of the aggregation are not stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then two scannable bullet groups (Functions, Use when). The four trigger phrases are slightly repetitive but each maps to a distinct query pattern; there is no filler or redundancy elsewhere.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described in detail, and one required parameter is fully documented. The description is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only error/edge behavior (nonexistent LB, empty listeners) is unaddressed.

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% with a single required parameter whose description ("Load balancer name or ID") already covers it. The description adds nothing about acceptable formats (UUID vs. name, ambiguity resolution) beyond what the schema states, 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 ("Get detailed information about a specific OpenStack load balancer") and enumerates exactly what detail is bundled: VIP config, listeners, pools/members, health monitors, status. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like get_load_balancer_list as the alternative, but "specific" vs. the sibling list tool is readily inferable.

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 "Use when user requests" block gives four concrete trigger utterances (show details, get configuration, show listeners/pools, check status), which maps well to how an agent routes natural-language requests. It lacks explicit when-not/exclusion guidance pointing to get_load_balancer_listeners, get_load_balancer_pools, etc., for narrower lookups.

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