Get Federation Rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required role (organization admin), acceptable session types, and the explicit exclusion of API keys and workload tokens for federation configuration. It stops short of covering not-found behavior or errors.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by return shape and access constraints, with no filler. The opening phrase 'Read the saved configuration' is slightly generic for a tool whose subject is a federation rule, but nothing is wasted.

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, describing the return object is valuable, and the auth constraints are covered. However, for a 3-required-parameter lookup tool it leaves the meaning of those identifiers undocumented and says nothing about behavior when the rule does not exist, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only names returned fields rather than explaining what organization, cluster and id refer to (name vs slug vs UUID lookup) and how they scope the fetch. The one hint, that a rule object includes organization_id and cluster_id, is indirect at best.

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 read operation and enumerates the returned rule object's fields (id, organization_id, cluster_id, created_at, updated_at), making the resource clear. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get-federation-issuer or list-federation-rules, so an agent must rely on the tool name to tell them apart.

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 by 'Read the saved configuration' plus the eligibility constraints (org admin, user session or OAuth full_access). It never states when to use this versus list-federation-rules or get-federation-issuer, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance beyond the credential exclusions.

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