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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds only the underlying API call name ('<entity>.getone') and the entity list, which the schema enum already supplies; nothing is said about behavior when an id is missing or whether ids are scoped per entity.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The trailing 'Gripp API: <entity>.getone' is compact but partly redundant with the schema; the entity enumeration also duplicates the enum, though it remains readable.

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 with annotations and full schema coverage, the basics are covered. However, there is no output schema, so the description should hint at what a returned record looks like (and that shape varies by entity), and it omits failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 in the schema, including the enum of allowed entities and the constraint that the id is numeric and positive. The description's restatement of the entity list adds no new meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one Gripp record by its numeric id') and enumerates the entity types, so an agent knows exactly what single object it returns. It does not explicitly name the list siblings it contrasts with, but the 'one record by numeric id' framing implicitly separates it from the gripp_list_* family.

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 statement of when to use this versus the gripp_list_* siblings, nor of prerequisites such as calling a list tool first to obtain an id. The only hint of that workflow ('from a gripp_list_* tool') lives in the schema, not the description.

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