get_tier0_gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns a single dict rather than a list envelope, enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly notes that current forwarding state is not included. There is 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 efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, a sibling alternative, and return-shape details. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the exact returned fields and the response shape. It also covers the key operational context: when to call it, how it relates to sibling tools, and its static-config limitation. An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining why tier0_id matters (it is needed to construct tier0_path for create_tier1_gateway) and reinforces that the ID comes from list_tier0_gateways. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get configuration details for one Tier-0 gateway', and adds the clarifying parenthetical 'north-south edge router'. It clearly distinguishes this from list_tier0_gateways (plural listing) and get_tier1_gateway (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 gives explicit usage guidance: use after list_tier0_gateways, use it to inspect HA configuration or build the tier0_path for create_tier1_gateway, and use get_bgp_neighbors instead for BGP peering state. It also states the limitation that this is static config only, so an agent knows not to use it for forwarding status.

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