get_appprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' wording is consistent with those. The description adds the HTTP method and path parameter context, but no further behavioral details such as error cases, response semantics, or authorization requirements are disclosed. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage but does not exceed a baseline score.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, and the endpoint is stated clearly. Every line earns its place, though the 'Args' block essentially restates schema information rather than adding substantial new value.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: the HTTP method, the path template, and the role of the id. It does not explain error behavior or response format, but the output schema covers the return shape and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 the parameter meaning. It does add that 'id' is a path parameter and shows its placement in the URL, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type. However, it still does not explicitly state that this is the AppProfile's unique identifier, leaving the semantic meaning mostly to inference from the tool name.

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 the exact operation in one short verb phrase: 'Read AppProfile.' Combined with the tool name and the explicit GET endpoint, there is no ambiguity about what resource and action are involved. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools because it targets a single AppProfile by ID, while related tools like list_appprofile handle listing.

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 usage context is implied by the path and the 'id' argument: call this when you have a specific AppProfile ID and want to read it. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_appprofile or update_appprofile_by_id, and no exclusions are stated.

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