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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the return includes the full audit trail (create, edits with before/after diff, rotations, revocation) and explicitly never exposes the secret. The 'same scopes as gluecron_list_tokens' note gives auth context.

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 dense single passage that front-loads the core purpose and return contents; nearly every clause earns its place. Minor redundancy in restating the type prefixes that the schema already carries.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating what the audit trail contains and what is withheld. Adequate for a two-parameter read tool, though it does not mention pagination or audit-trail size limits.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely repeats the type vocabulary already present in the schema. The only added value is tying `id` back to gluecron_list_tokens, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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+resource ('get one of your tokens by type and id') and immediately scopes it against the sibling list tool by noting the id comes from gluecron_list_tokens. An agent can distinguish this from gluecron_list_tokens without opening either schema.

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?

Implies the workflow: call gluecron_list_tokens first to obtain the id, then use this to fetch the single token. It also states scope ('one of your tokens'), but it never explicitly contrasts when to use this versus the list call rather than reading both.

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