Get Cause

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for a missing id, no pagination/inclusion behavior, nothing about how causes relate to incidents. It restates the name and stops.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, most of the burden is carried elsewhere, so the description is minimally sufficient. But it leaves an agent without any framing of what a 'cause' is in this system or how the tool relates to list_causes/create_cause.

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 100% and the schema itself is unusually helpful (UUID-or-slug anyOf, plus the explicit note that this tool has no 'caus_id' argument). The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Retrieves') plus specific resource ('a specific cause') and the lookup key ('by id'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly contrasts with list_causes by saying 'a specific cause', but never names that sibling, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'by id' — the reader must infer that this is the tool to pick when a cause id/slug is already known. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of list_causes or create_cause/update_cause as alternatives, and no prerequisite or not-found guidance.

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