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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: 404 for missing or non-visible bases and the multi-space targetSpaceId requirement. The ChangeRequests sentence is general platform context and adds limited value for this read-only tool.

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 core info is front-loaded and compact, but the ChangeRequests sentence and the stored-content warning are general platform instructions that are not specific to bases_get. They add noise to an otherwise focused description.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one required parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the identifier formats, 404 behavior, and multi-space auth requirement. It does not describe the response shape, but the 'Single Base' phrasing and GET endpoint provide sufficient context for a correct call.

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 schema only documents targetSpaceId, leaving baseId as a bare string. The description adds that baseId accepts an id or slug and explains when targetSpaceId is needed, meaningfully compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return a single Base by id or slug, with a 404 when it does not exist or is not visible. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like bases_list.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow for multi-space accounts: call auth_verify, ask which space to use, and pass targetSpaceId. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer bases_get over bases_list; the use case is implied rather than contrasted.

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