get_application

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the relations-inclusion behavior, and even that is a thin restatement of the schema's 'with' parameter.

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?

Three sentences where the first two say effectively the same thing ('Get a specific application' / 'Retrieve a specific application using its unique identifier'), so there is redundancy. The relations hint is the only sentence that 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 single-resource read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never clarifies the nested path object or reconciles 'relations' with the 'with' parameter, leaving an agent to infer both from the schema.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only gestures at a 'relations parameter' while the actual parameter is named 'with' — a naming mismatch that could confuse the agent. It does not explain the nested path/applicationId structure at all.

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 specific application') and clarifies it operates on a unique identifier, which distinguishes it from get_application_collection and get_application_versions. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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?

It gives one piece of actionable guidance: use the relations parameter to fetch associated data in a single request. But it offers no when-not conditions and does not mention the sibling tools (get_application_collection, put_application) an agent might otherwise reach for.

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