Get Provider Credential

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'fetch by id' (e.g., error behavior, return format, decryption), but the bar is lower given the strong annotation coverage and the simplicity of a read-only get.

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, concise sentence that is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the verb. No wasted words, and for a simple get-by-id tool, this length is appropriate.

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?

The tool is extremely simple, with one well-documented parameter and annotations that convey read-only, idempotent behavior. The description sufficiently communicates the core operation, though it could optionally mention that this specifically targets provider credentials (as opposed to other credential types) given the large sibling tool list. No output schema exists, but for a basic fetch, the contract is adequately 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% because the only parameter 'credential_id' has a clear description. The description's 'by id' phrase adds no new information beyond the schema's 'The credential id to fetch', so the baseline of 3 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 the action (Fetch) and the resource (provider credential) with the key qualifier 'by id'. This distinguishes it from list-type siblings like lyzr_list_provider_credentials_by_type, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar getters like lyzr_credential_get, leaving slight ambiguity about the credential resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_credential_get or list functions. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred context, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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