Get Correspondent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the basic 'by ID' scope but does not disclose behavior like not-found handling or authentication requirements, though the annotations lower the bar.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and resource. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 idempotent read operation with one self-explanatory parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks minor context like error behavior or sibling routing, but those are not essential for a basic get-by-ID call.

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 0%, but the single parameter correspondent_id and its integer type are largely self-explanatory. The description reinforces 'by ID' but adds no additional meaning such as ID format, source, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('correspondent'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_correspondents and create/update/delete_correspondent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using list_correspondents to find an ID first or when not to use it. 'By ID' only implies a prerequisite, not explicit usage criteria.

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