ise_ers_get_ancendpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description ('Get a single object') implies a read operation, but doesn't confirm what is returned, what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error behavior), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits or pagination concerns. For an ERS API wrapper, this is a meaningful gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a simple GET-by-ID operation. Not a 5 because it lacks any additional useful structure beyond the core purpose statement.

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 read tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a 50% schema coverage gap on the required 'id' parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't describe the return format, clarify the id parameter format, or address error behaviors. Compared to sibling equivalents that likely follow the same minimal pattern, this is consistent but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 50% - the deployment parameter has a rich description, but the 'id' parameter has none beyond its type. The description doesn't clarify what format the id takes (UUID, URL-encoded, etc.) or where to find it. The deployment parameter guidance is well-covered in the schema itself, so the description adds limited value.

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 verb 'Get' plus resource 'ANC Endpoints object' with 'by ID' is clear and specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'get by ID' pattern versus list/search siblings like ise_ers_list_ancendpoint and ise_ers_search_ancendpoint. Slight deduction because it doesn't further clarify what an ANC Endpoint is or what the object 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?

The sibling naming convention (get vs list vs search) implicitly conveys when to use this tool versus the list/search variants, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. The deployment parameter description gives useful context about deployment targeting, but overall usage context is only implied.

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