Get Heartbeat

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 and the description need not repeat it. The description adds nothing further — no mention of not-found behavior, slug-vs-uuid resolution, or error conditions — which is acceptable but thin against an already-complete annotation block.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, leading with the operation and its scoping qualifier. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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-record lookup with an output schema, full param coverage and safety annotations, the terse description is broadly sufficient. It is missing any note about behavior when the id is unknown or whether slug and UUID are equally valid, which would help an agent recover from mistakes.

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 already spells out UUID-or-slug acceptance and even warns that the argument is `id`, not `heartbeat_id`. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific heartbeat by id'), which cleanly separates it from the list_heartbeats sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name its alternatives (list_heartbeats, create/update_heartbeat), 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_heartbeats or the create/update variants, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a known id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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