get_agent_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by stating the tool performs no outbound HTTP call, which is exactly the ambiguity a 'get ... HTTP tool' name creates.

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?

Two sentences, no filler; the core purpose leads and the constraint/alternative follows. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by previewing the returned shape (fields, serverUrl, method). Combined with the no-network clarification, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only toolId provenance is unaddressed.

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 0% and the single parameter toolId is typed only as a bare string. The description clarifies that toolId identifies a Convocore agent tool, but adds no format, source, or example for the value, leaving the caller to infer how to obtain one.

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 and resource ('Get one ... agent HTTP tool') plus the lookup key ('by toolId'), and names the distinguishing content (fields, serverUrl, method). An agent can separate it from list_agent_tools and test_agent_tool_request without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly rules out the likely misinterpretation with 'Does not call the remote URL — use test_agent_tool_request for that,' naming the correct alternative and the condition that selects it. The only gap is that it never says to use list_agent_tools to discover a valid toolId.

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