get_indexerproxy_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, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the endpoint path, which is a detail not in annotations, but does not discuss any side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. Given the safety profile is well covered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with just two short sentences and the endpoint. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, then the specification. No filler or redundant information is present. It could be slightly more structured with a clear separation of the args, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple read operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any detail about the specific indexer proxy object being retrieved (e.g., what fields it has), which might be important for the agent to anticipate the result. The endpoint path provides the request format, but not the response structure beyond the schema.

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 has only one parameter 'id' (integer), and the description explicitly notes it as a 'Path parameter', which adds slight context beyond the schema (which just shows the type). The schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not elaborate on what the ID represents (e.g., the unique identifier of the indexer proxy), leaving the agent to infer. Since there is only one parameter and the description mentions it, a 3 is fair.

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 clear verb and resource ('Read IndexerProxy') and includes the endpoint path, which gives the agent a direct understanding of the operation. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling 'get_*' tools (e.g., get_indexer_by_id), and the name itself is already indicative of fetching by ID. The purpose is clear but not enhanced with any distinguishing context.

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. It simply states the verb and endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or why one might choose this over other get_* tools. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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