get_recipient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description's verb 'Get' aligns with this and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, auth requirements, or return format). Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description does not need to restate it, but it also adds no extra transparency value.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations), the description is essentially complete for invoking the tool. It clearly states what it retrieves. A minor gap is the absence of any indication of what the returned object looks like, but for a standard get-by-ID resource, this is largely implied and not critical.

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%: the parameter accountId is described as 'Recipient account ID'. The tool description's 'by ID' adds minimal additional meaning; it essentially echoes the schema. No extra semantics (format, constraints, source of ID) are provided, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'recipient account' with a unique identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recipients (plural, all) and create_recipient, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The usage is implied through the phrase 'by ID'—use when you have a specific recipient account ID—but it doesn't contrast with list_recipients or mention when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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