Network Describe Network Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the content shape (IP allow/block lists and comments), which is a modest contribution and largely duplicated by the output schema.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and with zero filler. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.

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, complete annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description only needs to establish intent and scope, which it does. The one remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint toward sibling list/describe 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the useful warning to quote non-uppercase names exactly as list tools return them. The description adds nothing about the policy_name argument, so baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 (describe) and resource (network policy) and even enumerates what is covered: allowed IP lists, blocked IP lists, comments. It doesn't explicitly contrast with network_list_network_policies or network_describe_network_rule, but the naming and content make the read-detail intent clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of network_list_network_policies (browse) or network_describe_network_rule (rule-level detail). The 'describe' convention implies fetch-details-for-a-known-policy, but nothing in the text confirms that or states prerequisites.

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