get_qualityprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. The description adds only 'Read' and the HTTP method, which is consistent with annotations and adds minimal context. No contradiction; the description is neutral but does not provide additional behavioral details like response structure or side effects.

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 contains no fluff, but it is under-specified. It includes the endpoint and an arg listing, yet omits useful context like when to use this over list_qualityprofile. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without being lengthy, so it earns a middle score.

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 the tool is a simple read with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete because it lacks usage context (when to call this vs. list_qualityprofile) and does not clarify the semantic meaning of the id. The output schema covers the return value, so that gap is acceptable, but the missing usage and id clarification make it inadequate for an agent to correctly choose and invoke this tool in all situations.

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. It only states that 'id' is a path parameter, which adds a tiny bit of context (location in URL) beyond the schema's type and required flag, but it does not explain what the id refers to (e.g., the quality profile ID) or any constraints or formatting. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('QualityProfile'), which distinguishes it from create, update, and delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_qualityprofile, relying on the name and the singular path parameter to imply a single-item fetch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_qualityprofile is for fetching all profiles, nor does it explain the intended use case (e.g., retrieving a specific quality profile by its ID). The HTTP endpoint is given, but that is not usage guidance.

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