get_schema_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and does not mention read-only behavior, registry handling, response contents, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lacks important behavioral context.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and the key identifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter fetch, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks guidance on registry behavior and does not direct the agent to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the result or the distinction from get_schema would improve completeness.

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 input schema fully documents schema_id and registry. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond 'globally unique,' which slightly reinforces schema_id but does not meaningfully extend what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Get a schema') and identifies the lookup key ('globally unique ID'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_schema tool, so an agent must infer the difference from the ID-based lookup rather than being told.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_schema, get_schema_versions, or list_subjects. The phrase 'globally unique ID' hints at the right condition—use when you have a schema ID—but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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