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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description repeats 'Read-only.' It adds useful context about the returned definition and metadata, but does not add non-schema behavioral details such as error handling or permission requirements. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no wasted language. The core definition is front-loaded, and the prerequisite id source follows immediately.

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 read-only getter with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, where the id comes from, and its safety profile. It does not mention error or not-found behavior, but the output schema handles return details, making the definition largely complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single automation_id parameter, and the description reinforces that the id comes from list_automations. It adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: one automation's full definition, including trigger, steps, name, status, and timestamps. It distinguishes this from list_automations by focusing on a single automation and requiring an id sourced from that list. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 a prerequisite — get the id from list_automations — which implies the typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is therefore implied but not fully guided.

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