get_private_cross_connect

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond what the annotation and schema provide, such as what exactly 'details' includes or any pagination/error behavior.

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, clear, and efficient sentence. It contains no redundant wording and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 read-only getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly indicates the tool fetches details of a single resource. It does not explicitly mention what fields are returned, but this is not required given the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 both parameters (pcc_id and depth) are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'private cross-connect' and clarifies it's for a specific instance, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_private_cross_connects. It accurately conveys that this is a single-resource retrieval operation.

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 context is implied by the pattern: use this when you have a pcc_id and need details for one cross-connect, as opposed to listing all. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_private_cross_connects, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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