provider_get_right

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete REST endpoint path, which is minor added context, but says nothing about not-found behavior, error responses, or auth requirements.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, and nothing wasteful. The second and third lines restate the first and the raw endpoint, which is mild redundancy but useful for developers matching against REST routes.

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 trivial single-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything required to invoke it correctly. Only the return shape and error semantics are absent, which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description's endpoint template confirms id is a path segment, a marginal addition over the schema's '(path)' note, 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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('an individual right') scoped to a single item by id, which implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling provider_query_rights. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the singular scope is 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the single-item lookup versus provider_query_rights for listing, but nothing states when to prefer one over the other or any prerequisites such as needing a valid right id or read permissions.

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