get_firewall_policy_ordering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the parameter notes clarify what the API requires. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it explain what the returned ordering represents or whether hidden/system policies are excluded.

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: the core operation appears first, followed by concise parameter documentation. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

All required parameters are documented, the output schema exists to describe return values, and the operation is clear enough to call correctly. It loses a point because it omits any usage guidance about when ordering retrieval is appropriate relative to sibling tools, and it does not explain conventions of the returned ordering.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters. It explains host formats (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site name/ID, and identifies source_zone_id and destination_zone_id as UUIDs required by the API. This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 first sentence names a specific operation: retrieving the ordering of firewall policies for a site, filtered by source and destination zone. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like list_firewall_policies (list, not ordering), set_firewall_policy_ordering (write), and get_acl_rule_ordering (different resource).

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 explains what the tool does and that source/destination zone IDs are required, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related firewall and ordering tools. It does not name alternatives like set_firewall_policy_ordering or list_firewall_policies, nor state when ordering is needed.

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