ise_ers_get_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states this is a read-only 'Retrieve' operation, which implies safety. It also discloses the constraint that not all resources support this operation. However, it doesn't describe error behavior (what happens for unsupported resources or missing names), response format, or pagination. The parenthetical about supported resources is the main behavioral disclosure.

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 compresses the core purpose and constraint into minimal words. No filler, no redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness for the tool's scope.

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 fetch-by-name tool with a 100%-covered schema and 3 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is that with no output schema and no annotations, the agent doesn't know the return format or error semantics. It's a well-contained tool but the absence of behavioral detail (query failure for unsupported resources, whether name is case-sensitive, etc.) leaves some ambiguity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, resource, deployment). The description adds the key semantic that 'name' maps to the /name/<name> URL pattern, which is useful. The resource param references ise_ers_resources for discovering supported operations. The deployment param is well-explained in the schema with concrete examples. The description adds marginal value but doesn't fully orient the agent on parameter relationships.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a single ERS object by its name'. It clearly indicates operational scope ('for resources that support /name/<name>'). While it's clear, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ise_ers_get (which retrieves by ID) or ise_ers_search (which searches), so it relies on the reader to infer differentiation.

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 implies usage context: 'for resources that support /name/<name>' hints at a constraint on which resources work. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, nor mention alternatives like ise_ers_get (by ID) or ise_ers_search. The deployment parameter references ise_list_deployments, which is helpful. There's implicit context but no clear exclusions or alternative references.

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