get_association

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('dictionary'), which adds some transparency, but it does not describe error behavior, authorization requirements, or other side effects. For a simple get operation, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by minimal Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place and it is front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context: it identifies the tool, its input, and return type. It lacks error-handling details, but those are not critical for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the only parameter (association_id) is self-explanatory. The description's 'The association ID' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and schema type. It does not compensate heavily, but the parameter is trivial, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific association by ID', which is a specific verb+resource with a precise scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_associations by indicating it retrieves a single entity by ID.

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 usage when you have a known association_id and need a single record, distinct from list_associations. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond that.

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