read_get

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's extra value is the concrete constraint that inner collections in include return at most 1000 items — genuinely useful behavioral context an agent couldn't infer from annotations. The 'layer 1' hint also suggests a scoped access layer. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a single behavioral constraint and a sibling-routing rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete enough for a read-by-id tool: purpose, an important pagination limit, and a routing rule are present, with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters. Minor gaps remain — 'layer 1' is never explained, and error/not-found behavior is unspecified — but these are low-stakes for a safe read operation with no output schema.

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 80%, so the schema already documents append, exclude, include, and resource with examples. The description adds marginal value by clarifying include behavior (inner-collection limit) and confirming id-based retrieval, but the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 (GET), resource scope (one entity of any resource), and access method (by id), making it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like read_collection (plural) and read_query (search). The 'layer 1' qualifier adds scope nuance, and naming read_card as the preferred tool for cards further disambiguates.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion with a named alternative: 'Prefer read_card for cards.' The purpose statement itself implies the primary use case (fetch one entity by id). It doesn't enumerate alternatives for other scenarios (e.g., when to choose read_query over this), but the guidance it gives is concrete and actionable.

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