get_keyword_by_keyword_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which is not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any other operational details.

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 no wasted words. It states the action, endpoint, and parameter clearly in two lines. While under-specified in content, it is efficiently structured and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it is missing any context about what a keyword is or when to use this over sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 restates that keyword_id is a path parameter, which is already in the schema. No additional semantics about format, constraints, or meaning are provided, adding zero value beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Get keyword') and includes the exact endpoint (GET /api/v1/keyword/{keywordId}), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like list_search_keyword. It is not a tautology because it adds the HTTP method and path, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar get_* tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this fetches a keyword by ID as opposed to searching for keywords (list_search_keyword) or fetching movies for a keyword (get_discover_keyword_by_keyword_id_movies). The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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