panelica_databases_get_v1_databases_id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a required OAuth scope (databases:read), which is useful auth context beyond the annotations. It does not add details about error behavior, response shape, or side effects, but for a simple read-only GET the annotation and scope line cover most of the safety profile.

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 minimal and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the HTTP method/path, category, required scope, and read-only indicator. Every line provides useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only GET, the endpoint, scope, and annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is not stating what a successful response contains, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is 'id' with 'Path parameter: id' already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('database') and gives the HTTP path GET /v1/databases/:id, so an agent can tell it retrieves a single database by ID. It is clear but stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from the plural list endpoint or describing what the fetched database record contains.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as panelica_databases_get_v1_databases, panelica_databases_post_v1_databases, or database detail endpoints. The usage context is only implied by the endpoint and category, with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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