onboarding_get_resource_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the endpoint path and the 'current organization' scope, which is modest added value for a read tool.

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 same sentence is repeated twice verbatim and followed by a raw HTTP path, so two of the three lines carry no incremental information. It is short but substantially redundant rather than front-loaded with useful content.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It is incomplete in that it doesn't explain what an onboarding resource is or how it relates to sibling getters, but nothing required for calling is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single required 'id' parameter documented as 'The id of the resource (path)', the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format or where it comes from, so baseline 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?

States a verb (Get) and a resource (onboarding resource), but 'selected onboarding resource' is vague and the definition never distinguishes itself from the sibling onboarding_get_resource, which appears to be the list-vs-single counterpart. The raw HTTP path adds no semantic clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this over onboarding_get_resource or onboarding_get_resource_by_id-adjacent tools. The only contextual hint is the 'current organization' scoping phrase, which is a constraint rather than a usage rule.

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