get_rdsh_farm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact (v10 endpoint yields a superset of update_rdsh_farm's fields), but much of the second paragraph is developer meta-commentary ('verified live, zero gap', 'mirrors the same fix applied to get_desktop_pool') rather than agent-facing behavior.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and sufficient. The second paragraph mixes one useful fact (v10 completeness) with self-referential justification ('mirrors the same fix applied to get_desktop_pool') that does not help an agent invoke the tool, so it only partially earns its space.

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 present, return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description adds the endpoint-version rationale needed to trust round-tripping into update_rdsh_farm, making it largely complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents farm_id and its source. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific RDS farm'), and the get/list contrast with list_rdsh_farms is reinforced by the schema parameter note ('obtain from list_rdsh_farms'). It does not explicitly name the sibling in the prose, so it falls just short of 5.

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 v10 rationale implies a read-then-update workflow (it guarantees the fields update_rdsh_farm needs), and the schema points to list_rdsh_farms for obtaining the ID. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' statement or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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