Get Tracker entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by explaining that the response carries a ``fields`` block and which extra blocks can be pulled in, though it says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the fields mechanics, then the discovery hint. The enumeration of field values is slightly long but each entry carries distinct semantic value, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so by describing the ``fields`` block and the optional expansions. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only permissions/error behavior is absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the valid ``fields`` values and their meaning (keyResultItems for goals, checklistItems for projects/portfolios, metricItems for widgets). It does not explain the ``expand`` parameter, so it isn't fully compensating.

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 (get) and resource (a single Tracker entity: project, portfolio or goal) by id, and explicitly names tracker_entities_search as the sibling for id discovery. An agent can distinguish it from the many other tracker_*_get tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to entities_search to discover ids first, which is a clear when-to-use condition. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g. when a specialized getter like tracker_projects_get or tracker_boards_get is preferable), so it falls short of a 5.

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