beta_testers__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the read intent, such as pagination, response structure, or relationship inclusion. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation clearly and includes the API endpoint. It wastes no words and every part adds value.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description is sufficient given the rich schema and safety-focused annotations. It does not explain return value structure, but the schema clarifies the available include/field options. A small improvement would be mentioning that this returns a single beta tester resource or that it supports include for relationships, but this is not essential.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already rich (e.g., 'ID from the matching list call', explanation of include, and note about row size for fields_betaTesters). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Read one beta tester by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and the included HTTP path [GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}] further confirms the single-resource read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_testers__list (collection read) and beta_testers__delete (destructive).

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 usage is implied: use this when you have a beta tester ID and want to read that single resource. The schema's id parameter description ('ID from the matching list call') provides a subtle workflow hint, but the tool description itself does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., saying 'for a list, use beta_testers__list').

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