os_resources_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'transport-safe chunking' behavior, which is useful context about how large resources are returned. However, it does not elaborate on pagination mechanics or any other side effects, so it only partially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

A single concise sentence states the core purpose up front and appends the chunking detail. No unnecessary words, perfectly sized for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential action (read) and the two lookup methods. However, it leaves pagination details (how to use pageToken) to the schema, and the description does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions. It is adequate but not exhaustive for an agent that may need to handle large resources.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that uri and name are alternative identifiers, and 'chunking' relates to maxBytes and pageToken. This adds meaning beyond the schema's sparse parameter definitions, though it does not explain maxBytes limits or the pageToken iteration pattern fully.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource type 'MCP Geo resource', plus the two identification methods (uri or name). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that read other data (e.g., os_linked_ids_get). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any particular sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool is for reading resources by uri or name, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. With many sibling tools, the absence of routing advice weakens this dimension.

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