Automation Rule: Get a automation rule details

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the required User API key header (`api-access-token`) and the locale/numeral convention (Persian/Arabic-Indic digits accepted, text passed through unchanged). It omits behavior for a missing/invalid rule ID, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the endpoint, auth and encoding details are compact single lines. The API path and encoding boilerplate are somewhat mechanical, but nothing is redundant enough to penalize heavily.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally convey what a returned automation rule contains or the failure mode for an unknown ID; instead it stops at endpoint, auth and encoding. For a simple two-parameter read it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema documents both account_id and id. The description adds only the numeral-format note (Persian/Arabic-Indic digits allowed) for IDs; notably it does not correct the schema's misleading id description, which says 'the automation rule to be updated' on a read tool.

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 ('Get an automation rule by ID') and even gives the underlying endpoint path, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list/add/update/remove automation rule tools, so it stops short of a 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 'by ID' framing implies this is the lookup tool for a single known rule, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus gapify_list_automation_rules or gapify_update_automation_rule. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.

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