get_application_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 target, with no mention of error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), required permissions, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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 specific application by its object ID.') with no filler or redundant information. It is fully front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present), and the description conveys the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs. listing) and behavioral details (permissions, error handling), making it minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has one parameter (app_id) with no description, and the description adds meaning by identifying it as the 'object ID', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it does not provide format details or further context beyond a single phrase, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool retrieves a specific application using its object ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_applications and get_service_principal_by_id by emphasizing a single resource and lookup by ID.

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 for fetching a single record by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_applications, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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