get_correspondent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'full details including matching rules,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose pagination, error behavior, or response format, but for a simple read-by-ID tool with readOnlyHint, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key information (get by ID, full details, matching rules) is front-loaded. Every word 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?

For a simple read-by-ID tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (full details including matching rules) and how to identify the resource (by ID). The only minor gap is not describing the response structure, but no output schema exists and the description's mention of 'full details' is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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 single 'id' parameter. The description says 'by ID' which clarifies the parameter's role, but doesn't add details like format, requiredness, or how to obtain the ID. Since there's only one parameter and its purpose is inferable from the tool name and description, this is minimally adequate.

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 tool retrieves a specific correspondent by ID and includes full details including matching rules. It distinguishes itself from list_correspondents (which lists all) and from create/update/delete correspondent tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 a single correspondent's full details by ID, which is reasonably clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list_correspondents or mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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