provider_get_oidc_relying_party

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the behavioral burden is low. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and pasting the raw REST path — no auth, permission, or error/not-found behavior is mentioned.

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 stated twice ('Retrieves a specific OIDC relying party.' then 'Get a specific OIDC relying party.') before the raw endpoint, so a third of the text is redundant. The endpoint line is useful but the duplication wastes space.

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-id read with full schema coverage and complete read-only annotations, this is minimally sufficient — an agent can call it correctly. It still lacks any pointer to the list/search sibling or note about behavior when the ID does not exist.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as the relying party's ID (path). The description only echoes the {id} placeholder in the path template, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('OIDC relying party') with the ability to identify it as a single-resource fetch keyed by id. It does not differentiate from the sibling provider_query_oidc_relying_parties (list) or provider_get_oidc_relying_party variants, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus provider_query_oidc_relying_parties (which lists parties) or provider_update_oidc_relying_party, nor any prerequisite information. The only implicit signal is the {id} path parameter, which the agent must infer from the schema.

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