Classification Get

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as whether the lookup errors on a missing id or requires specific permissions beyond organization scoping.

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 short sentence with the verb and scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read, the description plus rich annotations and full schema coverage is just barely sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not hint at what a classification object contains or how errors are surfaced, leaving a moderate gap.

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%, and both parameters (organizationId, classificationId) are documented in the schema with cross-references to organization_list and classification_list. The description's 'by id' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one classification') and scopes it to a single item via 'by id', which implicitly separates it from classification_list. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from other singular siblings like classification_impact or classification_statistics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus classification_list, classification_impact, or classification_statistics. The 'by id' phrasing is the only indirect usage signal, and prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing classification id) are implied rather than stated.

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