ise_ers_get_authorizationprofile

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. The description reveals this is a read/fetch operation ('Get') implying no destructive side effects, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose what happens for invalid/nonexistent IDs (error response behavior), pagination characteristics, or whether 404s are returned, though for a simple get-by-id these are minor gaps.

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: 'Get a single Authorization Profiles object by ID.' Zero waste, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and resource. It is appropriately minimal for a straightforward 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with only one required parameter and no output schema requirement, the description is adequate to explain return-value framing. However, it doesn't specify that the returned object schema (fields of an Authorization Profile) could be large/unexpected, and doesn't guide the agent on how IDs are obtained (list vs search). Given the simplicity, this is a complete-enough definition but leaves minor gaps around obtaining IDs and error handling.

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 50%; the deployment parameter has a thorough description in the schema naming formats (name, slug, number) and points to ise_list_deployments. The 'id' parameter relies on the description's statement that it retrieves by ID. The parameter meanings are adequately conveyed between schema and description, with the description adding the notion that 'id' identifies the Authorization Profile object.

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 clear verb+resource combination: 'Get a single Authorization Profiles object by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools (ise_ers_list_authorizationprofile, ise_ers_search_authorizationprofile). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the get-by-name variant or note that 'id' is a specific ERS resource identifier, but the core purpose is 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 tool is to be used to fetch a single Authorization Profile given its ID. The description implicitly distinguishes this from list (all objects) and search (filtered query) siblings by naming 'single... by ID.' However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusion notes, and doesn't mention how to obtain the id (e.g., via list/search).

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