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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds almost nothing behavioral. The only extra information is the underlying REST path GET /api/v1/interaction/{id}, with no mention of error/not-found behavior or what the lookup returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves it closer to a stub than a full definition.

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 read tool with no output schema, this is barely adequate: the agent knows what it fetches but not what comes back, what happens on a missing id, or how the id is obtained. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is modest but real.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate; 'by id' at least confirms interaction_id identifies an interaction rather than any other object. It still doesn't say where such an id comes from (e.g. returned by the list tools) or whether it must be a numeric Funraise id.

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 resource and scope: a single interaction fetched by its id, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings such as list_supporter_interactions. It never names those siblings, but the singular 'One interaction by id' is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus funraise_list_supporter_interactions or funraise_list_user_interactions, and no prerequisites or edge-case conditions (e.g. invalid/nonexistent id). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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