Get Operation Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the endpoint URL and API version, but does not disclose pagination behavior or other implicit traits beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 concise at a few sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It includes useful context like required parameters and endpoint, though it could be slightly more streamlined by avoiding redundancy between 'async operation' and 'Company Settings'.

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?

The description explains the return value (JSON object) and references the API endpoint, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it omits mention of pagination parameters (page, per_page), leaving a minor gap for a tool that supports optional pagination.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it retrieves details of an asynchronous operation, but there is slight ambiguity by equating the operation with Company Settings. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools, as no other tool deals with async operations.

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 advises using this tool to fetch Company Settings by identifier, but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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