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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the sheet must be owned, Bearer authentication is required, and the response fields match list_fiches. However, it does not disclose error behavior such as 404 for missing sheets or 403 for unowned sheets, nor any id format expectations.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource come first, followed by the field-shape reference and authentication requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted words.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: ownership scope, Bearer auth, and return shape via list_fiches. It omits error-handling details, but for this level of complexity the information provided is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only says 'id' is a required string. The description compensates by specifying that the id identifies an owned access sheet, which adds real meaning beyond the bare property name. For a single simple string parameter, this is sufficient.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one owned access sheet'), and the lookup key ('by id'). It also references list_fiches, which distinguishes this single-record getter from its list sibling without ambiguity.

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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for fetching a single owned access sheet by id, and 'Requires Bearer' gives necessary context for using it. It references list_fiches for field shape, implying when each sibling is relevant, though it does not explicitly spell out when to prefer list_fiches over get_fiche.

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