panelica_ftp_get_v1_ftp_accounts_id

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 covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece beyond annotations — the required scope 'ftp:read' — but its 'Read-only' line merely restates the annotation, and the endpoint duplicates the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get FTP account'), followed by short metadata lines for endpoint, category, scope, and read-only status. Minor redundancy exists ('Read-only' repeats readOnlyHint; the endpoint echoes the tool name), but no line is bloated.

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 one-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it supplies the endpoint, auth scope, and read-only nature. The main gaps are the missing usage differentiation from the list/management siblings and the lack of any response shape hint, but no output schema exists and the operation is standard.

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 the only parameter, 'id', is already documented as 'Path parameter: id'. The description's ':id' in the HTTP path reinforces that it's the path identifier but 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get FTP account') and includes the precise endpoint 'GET /v1/ftp-accounts/:id', which makes the single-resource-by-id purpose evident. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the ':id' path suffix rather than explicit, so it doesn't quite earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never references the sibling list endpoint (panelica_ftp_get_v1_ftp_accounts) or the mutation endpoints, nor does it state conditions that would make this the right choice. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and path.

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