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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (trigger, steps, current status), but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/unknown ID or any rate limits.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope lead and the returned fields follow. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal rather than richly structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description tells the agent what it fetches and what comes back. It is adequately complete for the complexity, missing only guidance on selecting it over sibling read tools.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'by ID' merely restates that automationId identifies the target and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (automation) plus scope (single, by ID), and it enumerates the returned fields (trigger, steps, status). The 'single' scope implicitly separates it from the sibling list_automations and get_automation_stats, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single automation by ID' and the list of returned fields, which signals a detail-retrieval call. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the alternatives (list_automations, get_automation_stats) that an agent would weigh this against.

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