objects_get_object_schema_by_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of default locationId behavior, the effect of fetchProperties, or what the returned schema contains. With annotations covering basic traits, the description contributes nothing beyond them.

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 short phrase, which is concise but also under-specified. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet the brevity borders on being too terse to be useful. It does not waste words, but it also fails to include any substantive detail that would justify its place.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the purpose and what the response looks like. It does not mention the `locationId` default or the `fetchProperties` effect, nor does it explain the return value structure. The schema provides parameter details, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters at 100%, and the description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The phrase 'by key / id' is redundant and potentially confusing since there is no 'id' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 a resource ('Object Schema') and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by key / id'). It is unambiguous enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'objects_get_object_by_location_id' or clarify that 'id' is not actually a parameter (only 'key' is).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'objects_get_object_by_location_id' or 'objects_get_record_by_id'. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection from the name and schema alone.

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