Get resource

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

The word 'Fetch' aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not mention failure modes, existence handling, or auth requirements. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives the one essential usage detail. Every sentence 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-only GET tool with two required string parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the target and the required inputs. It could be more complete by stating the return shape or error behavior, especially since there is no output schema, but the core calling contract is clear.

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%, so the schema fully documents resourceId and apiVersion. The description adds little beyond restating 'full ARM id' and 'api-version for the resource type.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a resource by its full ARM id.' This clearly distinguishes it from the list_* sibling tools, which enumerate resources rather than fetch a single one. The required id-based access makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the main usage scenario: call this when you have a full ARM resource id and need the resource. It also tells the caller to provide the api-version. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_resources or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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