Get Topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as what happens if the ID is invalid, authentication requirements, or response format. It adds no value beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and operation. While it does not mention the return value explicitly, it is obvious for a 'get by ID' tool. The completeness is sufficient for the low complexity level.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id' with description 'Topic ID'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get a topic by ID from Resend' uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('topic'), and provides scope ('by ID from Resend'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list-topics, create-topic, and update-topic.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single topic by its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no guidance about not using it when list-topics would suffice.

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