get_firewall_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only claim is redundant, but the description adds useful behavior beyond the annotation by enumerating exactly what data is returned (name, action, protocol, port, ruleset, firewall-group bindings). It also flags that this is legacy functionality on modern controllers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return details and routing guidance. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short and readable, so it does not significantly harm conciseness.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the operation type, the returned fields, defaults, and points to alternatives for modern controllers. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the Args section in the description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim without adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents both parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get legacy firewall rule configurations for a site.' It also lists the returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_firewall_policies, making it easy for an agent to identify exactly what this tool does.

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 gives clear routing guidance: modern controllers should use get_firewall_policies, and zone-based filtering should use create_firewall_policy. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to choose a named alternative.

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