Get a user federation provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description reinforces 'Read-only and idempotent; it does not modify any configuration.' and describes return values (JSON object or error text). No contradictions.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage and return behavior. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 strong annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, safety, and return behavior. No output schema, but description adequately explains return format. Complete and sufficient.

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 a detailed description for the 'id' parameter including an example UUID and instruction to obtain from list. The description adds value by connecting the parameter to the workflow and mentioning return format, but the schema already covers the parameter well.

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 uses a specific verb 'fetches' and specifies the resource 'user federation provider (such as LDAP or Kerberos)' and the method 'by its component id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like keycloak_federation_list and keycloak_federation_sync.

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 states the prerequisite: 'Use keycloak_federation_list first to obtain a valid id, then call this tool to inspect that specific provider.' Also describes what to do if id is invalid (returns 'not found'). Provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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