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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the org-membership constraint and the required org API key with applications:read scope. It does not say how out-of-org or missing-scope calls fail, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action and the org-scoping qualifier are front-loaded, and the auth requirement follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-resource read tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description covers the one thing the structured fields do not: the scope/organization constraint and credential requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description's 'by id' phrasing adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get one application by id') and adds a scoping constraint (must belong to the authenticated organization). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-looking sibling get_form or explain its relation to list_applications, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear use condition — retrieving a single application within the authenticated org — and states the required credential. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use list_applications to discover ids) or stating what happens for ids outside the org, so no explicit when-not guidance is present.

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