get_language_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; 'Read' and the GET method are consistent with those. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but there is 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?

Four short lines with the core action first, followed by endpoint and the single argument. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the endpoint, method, and path parameter are sufficient to invoke it correctly. It is not as complete as a description that also names alternatives or return semantics, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'id: Path parameter' adds the useful fact that id is passed in the path rather than the body or query. It does not, however, elaborate on what the id represents, leaving the schema's integer type and tool name to carry that meaning.

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?

Description states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'Language', and the endpoint '/api/v3/language/{id}' makes it a fetch-by-ID operation. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling collection tool list_language.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_language, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The only context is the endpoint and parameter, so the agent must infer usage from the name and path.

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