x_api_get_communities_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses read-only risk, required bearer/OAuth token scopes, tenant/credential selection behavior, failure modes, and a warning about sensitive data in responses. This is far beyond minimal and provides rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose, and most content is useful. The 'Use when: Get Community by ID' line is redundant with the opening, and the parameter section is thin, but overall it is organized and not padded.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers prerequisites, expected response shape, failure conditions, environment selection, and an example. It still lacks direct guidance for authorizationKey/preferredAuthType and doesn't explicitly mention the search alternative, but it is substantially complete for invoking 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains environment-selection semantics for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, and identifies id as path/required with an example. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explicitly described, leaving two parameters under-specified.

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 opens with 'Get Community by ID,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing retrieval by unique ID, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, naming x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion as alternatives for exploration, and warns against using before auth/configuration. However, it doesn't directly contrast with the sibling x_api_search_communities, so the guidance is strong but not fully differentiated.

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