associations_get_association_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what the response contains or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, and given the annotations' coverage, a middle score is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource. This is an ideal length for a simple lookup operation.

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 basic get-by-ID operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the return value or what an association is, and it does not differentiate from the many sibling 'get' tools. An agent might struggle to decide when to use this tool versus others without additional context, especially since there is no output schema.

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 should compensate for the single parameter 'associationId'. It does not add any explanation of what the ID is or its format. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory (an association identifier), so the lack of description is not severely confusing, but it still doesn't meet the burden of compensation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'association' with the qualifier 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like associations_get_association_by_object_keys or associations_get_association_key_by_key_name, which fetch by different identifiers. While not exhaustive, it is specific enough to convey the primary action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over the many other association-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent choose this specific 'by ID' variant versus the 'by object keys' version. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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