get_address_group_detail

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the return shape: group metadata plus each member with its resolved value, and that nested groups are listed with their members. However, it never states the read-only nature explicitly, nor what happens when the name does not match (empty result vs error), nor how vdom defaults are applied.

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 one-sentence purpose, then compact Parameters and Returns blocks. The parameter list largely restates the 100%-covered schema, but the Returns section earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the Returns section is essential and it covers the important edge case of nested group expansion. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a non-existent group and vdom default semantics, which the schema's default=null partly addresses.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: 'exact match' for name (the schema only says 'Address group name') and 'optional' for vdom. device_id's meaning matches the schema, so the added value is real but modest.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show one address group') and adds a differentiator unique to this tool: every member resolved to subnet, range or FQDN. That distinguishes it from the sibling list_address_groups, which merely enumerates groups.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one address group' plus 'name: exact match' signals this is for inspecting a single known group rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of list_address_groups for finding the name first, and no exclusions.

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