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 reinforces this with the JSON:API GET mapping but adds nothing about failure modes (404 on unknown UUID, 403 permissions), include-related errors, or response shape — modest added value over 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the concrete HTTP endpoint for agents that reason about JSON:API. No filler or repetition.

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-entity fetch with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus the JSON:API endpoint reference is nearly sufficient — an agent can infer standard JSON:API document output. Only error/empty-result behavior is left unspecified.

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 all four parameters are already documented in-schema, including that 'include' is a comma-separated path list. The description only restates that includes are optional, adding no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single resource by UUID for an entity_type/bundle'), and the word 'single' cleanly separates it from the sibling drupal_list_resources / drupal_search_content. The appended JSON:API path pins down exactly what is being fetched.

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: the UUID-based signature signals 'retrieve a known entity', which steers an agent away from list/search tools. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs. drupal_list_resources or drupal_search_content guidance.

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