get_application_loadbalancer

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get details' is consistent and adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of what is returned, pagination, or error behavior). It adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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 with zero filler. It states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary detail.

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 operation with good schema coverage and read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It omits return format but this is typically expected from a get operation and is not critical given the simplicity and no output schema.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (datacenter_id, application_loadbalancer_id, depth). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 the tool retrieves details of a specific application load balancer, distinguishing it from list_application_loadbalancers (which lists all) and get_loadbalancer (different resource). The verb 'Get details' plus resource specificity 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?

It's implicit that you use this tool when you have the ALB ID and need a single resource's details. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context is clear given the sibling list_application_loadbalancers and the narrow scope of a 'specific' ALB.

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