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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, but the description adds nothing beyond it — no indication of what happens when the ID does not exist, whether it errors or returns empty, or any auth/rate-limit context. It essentially restates the title.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. Missing pieces — ID format and not-found behavior — are small but real gaps for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; 'by its ID' does establish that the single parameter is the resource identifier, but says nothing about accepted ID format despite it being a free-form string up to 200 chars.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get one Hub Planner resource by its ID'), and the word 'one' implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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: an agent can infer this is the direct-lookup path when it already holds a resource ID, versus list/search tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over hubplanner_search_resources or hubplanner_list_resources.

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