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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond restating the endpoint — no error/not-found behavior, no note on what a resource contains. No contradiction, but no added value either.

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. The second sentence largely repeats the first in URL form, which is mildly redundant but costs almost nothing in length.

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 single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any hint of what a resource object is or what happens on an invalid id, and with no output schema the agent gets no return-shape context from anywhere.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Resource id.'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description's 'by id' adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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-less but unambiguous operation (fetch one resource) plus the resource and the underlying REST endpoint GET /resources/{resourceId}. An agent can distinguish it from waitwhile_list_resources because of the singular 'one resource by id'. It stops short of a fully explicit verb phrase like 'Retrieve a single resource', so not a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, waitwhile_list_resources, or of any prerequisite (e.g. needing an id obtained from the list call). The singular/by-id phrasing only weakly implies single-record lookup.

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