get_nat_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the rule_id format with examples ('*1' or '0'), which is critical for correct invocation and not present in the 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?

The description is concise—one sentence plus a focused note about rule_id format. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler.

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 with an output schema and read annotations, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (rule_id format). The only gap is the undocumented device parameter, but the tool is otherwise adequately specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the rule_id parameter with format examples, but the optional 'device' parameter is not explained. This partial compensation warrants a moderate score.

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 it 'Gets detailed information about a specific NAT rule', identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_nat_rules' by emphasizing 'specific', but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 note 'use the ID from list output' implies a prerequisite that the agent must first list NAT rules to obtain a valid ID, providing implied usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list or other NAT rule tools.

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