io_get_visitor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of behavior for a missing/invalid ID, no auth requirements, no note on rate limiting. For a bare lookup tool this is acceptable but thin.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It borders on under-specification rather than waste, so it is concise but not maximal.

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 single-record read with readOnlyHint and a fully documented schema, the definition is arguably complete enough to call. However, with no output schema, nothing tells the agent what a visitor payload contains or what happens on a bad ID.

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 thorough explanation of the 'view' enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' merely restates what the schema already documents; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single iOffice visitor by ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from io_list_visitors. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the other visitor siblings (io_create_visitor, io_update_visitor, io_checkin_visitor).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus io_list_visitors with a filter, or versus the create/update/checkin visitor tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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