Get Federation Issuer

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial operational context: it requires an organization admin, a user session or OAuth with full_access, and explicitly excludes API keys and workload tokens. That access constraint is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then the access constraint. No filler or repetition; the only mild looseness is that the return-field sentence could be trimmed since there is no output schema to complement it.

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 usefully enumerates the returned object's fields, and it covers the authentication prerequisites. The remaining gap is input semantics — for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, that missing piece keeps it from being fully self-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 description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description must carry the burden — and it does not. It never explains what 'organization' expects (slug, name, or ID) or that 'id' is the issuer UUID, leaving both inputs effectively undefined beyond their JSON types.

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 names a specific action ('Read the saved configuration') and enumerates the returned fields (id, organization_id, created_at, updated_at), which makes clear this fetches a single federation issuer. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list-federation-issuers, but the singular resource plus 'get-' naming makes the distinction workable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'read the saved configuration' suggests inspecting an existing issuer rather than listing or mutating. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g., 'use list-federation-issuers to enumerate'), so an agent must infer the selection between get- and list- siblings.

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