Get administration details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying what details are returned (address, contacts, tax IDs, active modules) and the endpoint. There is 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 and front-loads the core purpose, followed by useful detail and the endpoint reference. The opening sentence 'Get administration details' is redundant with the title/name, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 read-only endpoint with one optional, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to call the tool correctly and set expectations about returned content. It could explicitly mention list_administrations for wider enumeration, but that is not essential for invoking this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented with an enum and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 details') and names the resource ('administration linked to this API key'), with concrete content such as address, contact information, tax IDs, and active modules. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_administrations beyond the singular ownership framing.

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 gives clear context: this tool returns details for the administration associated with the API key, which distinguishes it from broader listing operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for a single-administration read.

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