get_pa_indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description complements these by specifying that it returns 'details...including its formula', adding useful context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction and no missing behavioral disclosure for this simple read operation.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no fluff, every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 get tool with one required parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and return content (formula details). It is complete and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'sys_id_or_name', which the schema already explains. The description does not add extra meaning or usage hints about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('details of a specific Performance Analytics indicator') including a notable sub-aspect ('its formula'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pa_indicators, get_pa_dashboard, and get_pa_job.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool nor when to avoid it. It implies usage for fetching indicator details, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, which is a minor gap for a simple get tool.

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