Get a snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only added claim, "Reads account data," is vague and does not clarify what a snippet is, whether it is scoped to the given account, or any error/absence behavior — so it adds little beyond the 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 short and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple read tool. However, the second sentence ("Reads account data") is vague filler that does not clearly earn its place, and the overall brevity here reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It nonetheless omits what a snippet represents and any scoping/return context, leaving it adequate but bare.

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%, so both parameters (account and snippet_id) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the positive-integer constraint. The description contributes nothing further about parameters, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Get a snippet" simply restates the tool name and title, giving no differentiation from siblings like list_snippets, update_snippet, or create_snippet. While "get" and "snippet" identify a verb and resource, the sentence adds no information an agent couldn't infer from the name alone.

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_snippets, get_snippet-adjacent retrieval tools, or update_snippet. No preconditions, no alternatives, no exclusions are stated anywhere in the description.

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