io_get_visitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no error/not-found behavior, no pagination or rate context, and no note on how the 'view' choice affects payload size — it simply restates the operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a two-parameter lookup tool. It is arguably a touch under-specified rather than excessively concise, but nothing in it 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the response shape entirely to the schema's 'view' docs and says nothing about what a successful or failed lookup yields.

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 100%, including a detailed explanation of the 'view' enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 correct here.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single iOffice visitor') and scopes it to lookup by ID. It is clearly distinguishable from io_list_visitors, io_create_visitor, and io_update_visitor by verb, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Get a single visitor by ID' suggests a direct-Lookup scenario, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over io_list_visitors, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid visitor ID first.

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