Get resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Fetch" implies a read, but nothing confirms read-only semantics, says what happens when the OID does not exist, or notes permission requirements; "including connection status where reported" hints at return content but is hedged and largely redundant with the output schema.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is unrelated to fetching a resource and reads as a stray cross-cutting convention, consuming space without serving this tool's definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup. Still missing is any note on failure behavior for an unknown OID and confirmation of read-only semantics, while the display-name sentence adds noise rather than completeness.

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% for the single required parameter, and the schema already documents oid as "the midPoint object OID". The description adds no format, validation, or lookup-example detail beyond that, 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?

"Fetch a single midPoint resource by OID" states a specific verb, resource and cardinality, which cleanly separates it from list_resources and the generic search_objects. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the singular-by-OID framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 call this instead of list_resources, search_objects, or test_resource. The only usage advice present ("When you write to a person, name people, roles and requests by their display names rather than OIDs") concerns a different operation entirely and does not help select this tool.

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