get_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only restates the operation implied by the tool name. It does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation, what details are returned, or how errors like a missing tunnel are handled.

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, focused sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter getter, the schema and description are enough to invoke the tool. However, without an output schema or additional behavioral context, the exact nature of the returned 'details' is left undefined, and there is no pointer to the corresponding list endpoint.

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?

The input schema fully documents both required parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline score is appropriate because the description itself provides no extra parameter context.

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 a specific verb ('Get details') and a specific resource ('Magic Transit IPsec tunnel'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling list_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnels, and 'IPsec' distinguishes it from the GRE tunnel getter.

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 choose this tool over related alternatives such as list_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnels or get_magic_transit_gre_tunnel. It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining a tunnel_id beforehand.

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