get_network_by_network_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the GET route and confirms network_id is a path parameter, but it does not disclose any non-obvious behavior; for a simple fetch this is acceptable.

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?

Every line earns its place: purpose, endpoint, and argument. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the 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?

For a one-parameter GET with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential details. The only notable omission is sibling differentiation, but that is more a usage-guidelines gap than a completeness gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description helps by stating that network_id is a path parameter. It does not explain what kind of ID this is or any constraints beyond the schema's number type, but the parameter name and tool context make a single required ID reasonably self-explanatory.

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 'Get TV network details' with a specific verb and resource, and it includes the concrete GET endpoint. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_discover_tv_network_by_network_id, which appears to target the same entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_discover_tv_network_by_network_id or other discovery endpoints. The intended use must be inferred from the name and description rather than explicitly stated.

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