get_bundle_id_state

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotentH, and no destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explicitly returns 'absent' when the identifier isn't found, and it disclaims side effects. It doesn't go into pagination, auth, or error codes, but it is sufficient for a read-only one-parameter tool.

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 sentences with no filler: the first establishes what is read, the second covers the return and side-effect behavior. The main purpose and the 'before provisioning.json' context are front-loaded.

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 ('1 parameter, no output schema'), and the description states what is read, the result, how absence is represented, and what potential no. It doesn't give an explicit output shape, but for this level of complexity and with annotations already covering side effects, it is complete enough.

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 must carry the parameter's meaning. It mostly does: it identifies 'identifier' as a bundle identifier and emphasizes 'exact', which clarifies matching semantics implied by the regex. It could give an explicit example but for a single parameter this is enough.

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 explicitly says 'Read one exact bundle identifier and its portal platform/capabilities', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from write/registration workflows by ending with 'never registers anything', which contrasts clearly with sibling tools like prepare_app_record or apply_plan.

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?

It states a clear usage context: use this before authoring provisioning.json, which is specific and actionable. It doesn't list official sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the 'before authoring' phase plus 'never registers anything' gives strong contextual guidance.

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