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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely non-redundant behavioral fact – that reading the rule does not execute the automation – which is not derivable from the annotations and directly prevents a harmful misread.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and by what key, followed by the two disambiguating facts. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state that the configuration is included, which is the main thing an agent needs to know about the response. The remaining gap – how the optional workspace_id/brand_id scoping affects a read – is minor for a single-record getter.

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 50%: workspace_id and query carry their own descriptions, while id and brand_id are bare. The description says "by id" but adds no format or scoping detail, and explains nothing about brand_id's relationship to workspace_id when both appear. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does much of the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read one saved content automation rule by id") and scopes it to a single record with its configuration, which implicitly separates it from the plural aidelly_get_content_automations lister and the create/update/delete variants. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

"Read one ... rule by id" gives the selection condition (you already know the id, you want exactly one), and "It does not run the automation" is an explicit when-not that steers agents away from aidelly_trigger_content_automation. There is no direct routing to the alternative tools by name, so it is strong context rather than full alternative coverage.

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