Get network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on behavior when the ID doesn't exist (error vs null), no cross-project visibility notes, no auth requirements. For a single-fetch tool this is a thin addition.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but it does not waste any words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a lookup tool the description omits where network_id comes from and what happens on a miss, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 50%: project_id is documented in the schema (including a pointer to get_scope), but network_id has no description at all, only a min/max length. The description says 'by ID' but never clarifies ID format/source or how project_id scoping affects the lookup, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one network') plus the lookup key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_networks. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, but the singular-vs-list distinction is unmistakable from the name and sentence.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus list_networks or other get_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. requiring a known network_id obtained elsewhere). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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