provider_get_rights_category

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 nothing beyond that: the GET path it quotes is verbatim identical to the annotation title, and with no output schema there is no disclosure of the returned category shape or how a missing id is surfaced (e.g., 404).

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but sentence 2 ("Retrieves the requested Rights Category by id") merely restates sentence 1, and sentence 3 duplicates the annotation title. Roughly two-thirds of the text is redundant rather than additive.

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-only lookup this is minimally sufficient to call correctly, and the annotations cover the side-effect profile. However, with no output schema the description never characterizes the returned category, and it offers no routing guidance among the several rights-related siblings, leaving real gaps for an agent operating in this namespace.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the burden and a 3 baseline is appropriate. The description only reiterates "by id" and contributes no format hints (URN vs numeric id) or error semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Retrieve") and resource ("an individual Right category") and scopes it to a single id, which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling provider_query_rights_categories. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the singular/plural naming.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus provider_query_rights_categories, provider_query_rights, or provider_get_role. The only usable cue is the implied "you already have an id" condition carried by "by id"; no prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are offered.

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