get_applications_by_id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path shape, which is useful, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or required permissions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and the parameter note. It contains no filler and each line adds necessary invocation detail.

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 read-by-id tool, the description, combined with the schema, annotations, and output schema, provides enough information to make a correct call. It could be more complete by explaining what an Application is or what absence of an id might cause, but those are not critical given the low complexity.

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 schema only documents id as an integer, but the description adds that id is a path parameter. This is meaningful because it tells the agent where the value belongs in the request URL. The meaning of id is also inferable from the endpoint and tool name, though not explicitly explained.

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 and resource: "Read Application" and the HTTP endpoint "GET /api/v1/applications/{id}". This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from list-oriented siblings like list_applications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_applications or get_*_by_id tools. It only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions that should select it.

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