Get one OCI resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by telling the agent what it gets back ('configuration, nested settings, tags'), which is behavioral rather than restating annotations. It says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations and an output schema present those are less critical.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow cue immediately after. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a self-documenting enum of 38 resource types, the description only needs to establish the read-one workflow, which it does. It does not explain the breadth of resource_type choices, but the enum carries that load.

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 description coverage is 67%, above the baseline threshold, and the schema documents the bucket-NAME exception and the verbose toggle. The description reinforces that 'target' is an OCID obtained from oci_list/oci_search, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Fetch full details for a single resource') and the phrase 'single resource' implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative directly in the purpose statement, so sibling separation is left partly to inference.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool: 'after oci_list or oci_search has given you an OCID'. That is a concrete triggering condition referencing two named siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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