get_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns unit data and includes current tenants, which is useful. However, it does not mention that it is read-only (safe), any required permissions, or if there are side effects. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose; no extraneous content. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It lacks explicit mention of the return format or any pagination, but for a get-by-ID operation, the information is sufficient. Minor gap: could note that it returns a full unit object.

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% with parameter 'id' having a description 'Unit UUID'. The description repeats 'by ID' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'single property unit by ID', and specifies the key inclusion of 'current tenants'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_units (multiple), create_unit/delete_unit (mutations), and tenant tools (different resource).

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?

The description implies use for retrieving a specific unit by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear but guidance is implicit.

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