os_landscape_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the resource type and that boundary geometry is part of the retrieval. It does not disclose behavior around missing records, invalid combinations of id/name, or the exact effect of includeGeometry, but the annotations lower the burden here.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core purpose: the action, the resource type, the geometry component, and the lookup keys. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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, has an output schema, and benefits from read-only and idempotent annotations. Still, the description leaves some ambiguity about required inputs and the actual effect of includeGeometry. The schema's own note about 'valid input should satisfy id or name' partially compensates, but the tool description alone does not fully answer an agent's key invocation questions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It clarifies that id and name are lookup keys, which adds some semantic value beyond the bare property names. However, it does not explain the relationship between id and name (one-or-the-other, mutually exclusive?), nor what includeGeometry actually controls beyond its name and default value.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('protected-landscape record and boundary geometry'), and the two lookup keys ('by id or name'). It is concise and immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'os_landscape_find', relying on the naming convention rather than an explicit differentiation.

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?

'by id or name' implies this is a direct lookup tool rather than a search/find tool, which is useful context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over os_landscape_find or other lookup siblings, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisite context. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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