get_nat_gateway

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint: true, which already covers the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, just the purpose. It doesn't disclose anything about the response structure, potential errors, or pagination. With annotation coverage, the bar is lower, but the description still doesn't add meaningful behavioral details beyond what annotations imply, so a 2 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose. No filler or unnecessary words, and the structure is clear. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 simple getter tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention any return value details (e.g., what fields are included) or edge cases (e.g., if the NAT gateway doesn't exist). Given the tool's simplicity(i.e., 3 params, no output schema), a 3 is fair as it meets minimum requirements but leaves some gaps.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add much. The parameters are all documented in the schema, and the description confirms the tool takes a datacenter and NAT gateway ID. It adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific NAT gateway', which matches the name and title. It distinguishes from siblings like list_nat_gateways (list all vs get specific) and get_nat_gateway_rules (rules vs gateway itself), though not explicitly. A score of 4 is fair because it lacks explicit differentiation from similar get_* tools.

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 description implies this tool is for retrieving a single NAT gateway when you know its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over list_nat_gateways or other alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but there are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so it's decent but not thorough.

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