get_config_indexer_by_id

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior so the bar is lower. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling or authentication requirements. The GET method and 'Read' align with annotations with no contradiction.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core operation comes first, followed by the exact endpoint and argument definition. There is zero fluff and every sentence earns its place. It is an example of appropriately minimal documentation.

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 single-parameter read tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the full path and parameter location, and the output schema explains the return value. The main missing piece is a clearer definition of what an IndexerConfig ID is, but the endpoint and name make this reasonably inferable.

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 compensate for the lone 'id' parameter. It merely labels it as 'Path parameter', which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type of integer. It does not explain what the id refers to or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the endpoint.

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 opens with 'Read IndexerConfig.' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this tool reads a single indexer config. The included HTTP endpoint GET /api/v3/config/indexer/{id} further disambiguates it from sibling tools like list_config_indexer or get_indexer_by_id, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the 'by_id' pattern and the endpoint, suggesting an agent would call this when it has a specific indexer config ID, but the description does not state this or contrast it with list_config_indexer. The context is not misleading but relies on convention.

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