get_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes credentials and redirect URIs, and 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval. However, it does not state auth requirements, whether full secret values are returned, or any side-effect guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, naming the action, the resource, and the key contents of the response.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it leaves 'detailed information' vague and only names credentials and redirect URIs. It does not cover auth, error behavior, or the full set of returned fields, so an agent has some reasonable expectations but not complete context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents appId and orgId adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the target as a specific application, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Get detailed information about a specific AgeKey application including credentials and redirect URIs.' It clearly differentiates from list_applications by focusing on a single application, but it does not explicitly clarify how it overlaps or differs from the sibling get_credentials tool.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving detailed information about one known application rather than listing apps, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like get_credentials or list_applications.

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