Get a secret provider configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint and auth class, providing extra context about authentication needs. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing IDs or other edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact at two sentences, but the second sentence contains technical implementation details (HTTP method, auth class) that may be more appropriate in annotations or schema. Still, it is concise and free of fluff.

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 and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks an explanation of what a secret provider configuration is or when to fetch one, which would help an agent understand its relevance.

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 does not add any meaning to the single parameter (id). While the parameter is simple, the description should have clarified its purpose (e.g., 'the ID of the secret provider configuration to retrieve').

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 'Get a secret provider configuration', which is a clear verb+resource purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secret_provider_configs' (which lists all configs), missing an opportunity to differentiate by scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes technical details (HTTP method and auth class) rather than contextual usage criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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