get_recipient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'and its settings' adds useful context that the response includes recipient configuration, but the description says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown, permission requirements, or result shape — modest added value only.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is good but leaves nothing to anchor downstream detail.

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 read-only single-resource getter with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the minimum. However, 'its settings' is left opaque and there is no note on failure modes or on the alias-count inclusion, which an agent must discover from the schema alone.

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 both recipient_id (UUID) and include_alias_count (default true) are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never mentions the include_alias_count toggle or its default behavior.

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 and resource — 'Get a single recipient and its settings' — which is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like update_recipient or delete_recipient and from get_alias. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over update_recipient, create_recipient, or a bulk/list alternative, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing recipient id. The only implied guidance is the word 'single', which a reader infers from the name rather than the text.

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