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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it enumerates the returned field set (name, email, groups, details 1-10, colours, skills), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits error behavior for an unknown id.

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 resource and scope, plus the endpoint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is the key missing piece and the description supplies it. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents resource_id. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a single fully documented parameter.

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: fetch one resource by id with all its fields. The word 'One' implicitly contrasts with the sibling scheduleit_list_resources, though it never names it explicitly.

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 implied by 'one resource by id' – an agent can infer this is for looking up a single known resource. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer list_resources or get_event over it, and no prerequisite or not-found guidance.

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