Get device details

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that detail sections are optional/cherry-pickable, which hints at response-shape control, but it does not say what the base payload contains when 'include' is empty, nor any cost, size or latency implications of requesting many sections.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: purpose first, then the section catalog. The parenthetical glosses make it long-ish, but each clause carries information an agent cannot get from the bare enum.

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 2-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to scope the response, and where the ID comes from. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by glossing each enum value the schema leaves bare ('os_updates (pending Apple updates)', 'management (client/enrollment info)', 'installed_profiles (profiles on an Apple device)'). That per-section meaning is real value beyond raw enum strings, and only the 'id' format is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one device by its Miradore device ID', which is clearly a single-record fetch. Singular 'one device' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_devices, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its Miradore device ID' plus the schema note '(from list_devices)' suggests the discovery-then-fetch flow, but the description never states when to call this versus list_devices or device_health_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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