get_printer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds value by listing the specific configuration fields returned, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose any edge-case behaviors (e.g., what if printerId does not exist? Does it return null or error? No rate limits or auth details mentioned, but these may be assumed from 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, concise sentence clearly stating the purpose and listing the returned fields. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given only one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is fairly complete. It lists all returned fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., nested objects), but since no nested objects exist, this is minor.

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%, with the printerId parameter already described clearly in the input schema (type number, min 1). The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 for a specific printer by ID, listing exactly which configuration fields (title, enabled status, station, etc.) are returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_printers (which lists all printers) and create_print_job (which creates, not retrieves). However, it could explicitly differentiate from get_print_job, which retrieves a print job, not a printer.

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 when you need details of a specific printer, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_printers for listing all, get_print_job for job details). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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