get_oauth_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'gets details' suggesting read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements, idempotency, rate limits) or what happens if the client does not exist.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every piece of information earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It lists the returned fields (client_id, secret, callback URLs), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could add a note about error cases or permissions.

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%, and the schema already documents oauth_client_id. The description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Gets details' and explicitly names the resource 'specific OAuth client' and key fields (client_id, secret, callback URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_oauth_clients and create_oauth_client.

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 OAuth client) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like list_oauth_clients for an overview.

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