fossa_get_oidc_trust_relationship

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

The read-only annotation already discloses non-mutating behavior, and the description appropriately restates 'Read-only.' It adds valuable context beyond the annotation by explaining the unusual 401-rather-than-404 error response for missing or unauthorized relationships, which is an important behavioral nuance for agents.

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 concise and effectively structured: it states the exact purpose at the start, lists returned attributes in a compact phrase, and then adds a brief read-only note plus a specific error-behavior caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 description is complete for a get-style tool: it identifies the resource, the key fields returned, the read-only nature, and an important error-case nuance. With an output schema present and only one parameter, no further context is needed.

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?

The schema has one parameter, trust_relationship_id, with no description. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter format or provide examples, relying on the parameter name's self-evidence. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more; however, the single parameter is unambiguous given the tool's purpose, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource 'one OIDC trust relationship' and enumerates the key data returned (issuer, service account, audiences, claims). It effectively distinguishes this single-get tool from listing (fossa_list_oidc_trust_relationships) and creation (fossa_create_oidc_trust_relationship) siblings.

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 phrase 'Show one' clearly indicates this is for retrieving a single trust relationship by its ID, contrasting with list or create operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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