associations_get_association_by_object_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it simply repeats the action. It does not mention what gets returned, pagination, error behavior, or any special side effects. Since it adds nothing beyond the annotations, this is a minimal score.

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 that is efficient and front-loaded. It has no fluff or redundant information. While it could be more informative, the structure itself is appropriate and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain what objectKey means, how the association is identified, or what the response contains. It also doesn't clarify when to use this instead of other association lookups. An agent would struggle to determine the exact input format or expected result.

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 50% (only locationId has a description). The description text does not explain either parameter, especially objectKey, which is required and lacks any schema documentation. The description's plural 'keys' contradicts the singular 'objectKey' parameter, adding confusion. No compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('association'), and hints at the lookup method ('by object keys'), which distinguishes it from siblings like associations_get_association_by_id. However, 'object keys' is ambiguous (the schema has a singular 'objectKey' parameter, not multiple keys), and it doesn't clarify what constitutes an object key. Still, it is not a tautology and provides the basic intent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, exclusions, or check for required prerequisites. The only usage hint is the locationId parameter's default in the schema, but that's not in the description and doesn't address tool selection. The agent must infer from the name that it's for object-key-based lookups, which is not explicitly stated.

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