acedatacloud_get_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' does convey a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description stops there—no mention of what happens with an invalid/nonexistent ID, response envelope, or rate-limit considerations. For a simple read with an output schema available, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, efficient sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb. Zero fluff—every word adds meaning. For a simple single-parameter getter, this is appropriately sized with no waste.

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 low-complexity tool (1 param, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose adequately. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be re-described in prose, and no nested objects or enums add complexity. Scant but complete for the scope.

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 coverage is 100% with one well-described param (Application UUID). The description adds semantic value by clarifying the response includes service/pricing details, helping the model understand what kind of application context is returned. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the baseline is 3-4; the extra context around the results earns a 4.

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?

"Get one application and its service/pricing details" is a specific verb+resource combination. The word "one" meaningfully differentiates it from list_applications, and the mention of 'service/pricing details' distinguishes the breadth of the returned data. It would be a 5 if it more explicitly carved out exactly what 'application' encapsulates versus the related get_site/get_service tools among the siblings.

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 wording 'one application' implies this is for a single entity as opposed to list_applications, giving implicit usage context. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it, names alternatives like list_applications for enumeration, or notes any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing UUID). Acceptable but minimal guidance.

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