accessibility_declarations__get

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP endpoint but no additional behavioral context (e.g., authorization requirements, error handling, rate limits). Given the annotations, the description is adequate but doesn't go beyond them.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence plus the endpoint—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the action, resource, and required identifier. One minor gap is not describing the return value, but that is often inferred for reads.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'Resource identifier.' The description repeats 'by ID' but adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'Read one accessibility declaration by ID,' specifying a clear action (read) and resource (accessibility declaration identified by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, create, delete, and update, which have different verbs or scopes.

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 for fetching a single declaration when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like apps__accessibility_declarations__list. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list, lacking explicit guidance.

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