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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful invocation context by surfacing the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g., 404 on unknown UUID) or response shape. This is acceptable but not rich context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core operation stated first and the endpoint mapping as a compact trailing clarification. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only single-fetch whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents all four parameters, the description is close to complete. It could add one line on what the JSON:API response contains or how errors surface, but no output schema exists to do that work either, so this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3 and each parameter already documents itself, including the UUID-vs-numeric-id and include-path details. The description restates entity_type/bundle/uuid and the optional includes without adding syntax or constraints 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get a single resource by UUID') and scopes it by entity_type/bundle, which inherently distinguishes it from the plural siblings drupal_list_resources and drupal_search_content. The appended JSON:API path maps the abstract operation onto a concrete endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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 only implied by the 'single resource by UUID' framing; the description never states when to prefer this over drupal_search_content or drupal_list_resources, nor any prerequisite such as needing a known UUID first. Adequate but with a clear gap in routing guidance.

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