get_network_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly frames this as a retrieval of an existing structure, which implies a read-only, zero-parameter, low-risk call, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether the hierarchy is a nested tree versus a flat list.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the level enumeration in parentheses. No filler, though the trailing purpose clause is slightly compressed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about what comes back; it partially compensates by naming the four hierarchy levels. For a zero-param tool that is close to adequate, but the shape of the returned structure remains unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot and need not add parameter meaning here.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('UX 2.0 network hierarchy') and enumerates the levels it covers: global, regions, areas and sites. That contrasts reasonably with the closest siblings (get_ux2_overview, list_config_groups), though it never names an alternative to distinguish against.

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 clause 'used by configuration groups and policies' implies the context in which an agent would need this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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