bundle_ids_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no rate-limit notes, no indication of what the response contains or how sparse fieldsets/includes behave. Just echoing the HTTP path adds zero behavioral context for a read tool with eight parameters.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the only content is a duplicated path string, with no front-loaded plain-language statement of what the call returns. It doesn't waste many words, but it wastes the one slot it has.

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 an eight-parameter JSON:API-style read with relationship includes, sparse field selection, and no output schema or annotations to fall back on, the description omits everything an agent needs to call it correctly. It is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% — all eight parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_*) carry their own descriptions in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, but it does not need to compensate for gaps because the schema already documents everything.

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 is essentially the raw HTTP operation repeated twice — 'GET /v1/bundleIds/{id}' — which restates the tool name (bundle_ids_get_instance) rather than stating the purpose in language an agent can use. It does convey verb and resource, but it offers no distinguishing detail against siblings like bundle_ids_get_collection or bundle_ids_create_instance.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to fetch a single bundle ID versus the collection, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The endpoint-path fragment gives no routing signal for an agent choosing among the many sibling tools.

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