consumers_get_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the required permission ('Read' on 'Consumer') and implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe not-found behavior, error conditions, or response format.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: one states the operation and cardinality, the other states the permission requirement. Nothing is redundant or excessive.

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-parameter lookup, the description covers the core operation, the permission needed, and the return scope. It is slightly thin on error behavior, but the low complexity and full schema coverage make it adequate.

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?

The input schema already documents 'id' as an integer 'Consumer ID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a specific resource and scope ('single Consumer by integer ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like consumers_list and consumers_get_by_name. The operation is immediately identifiable.

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 makes clear this is a point lookup by integer ID, which implies the appropriate use case: when the caller knows the Consumer's ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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