Get characteristic

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

The description correctly indicates a read operation and the readOnlyHint annotation confirms it, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as response shape, errors, or auth expectations. This is acceptable for a simple getter with strong annotation coverage.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the intent and contains all necessary concept-level information for this tool.

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 single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is completely adequate. An agent can correctly invoke the tool knowing it should pass one characteristic ID.

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 schema documents the only parameter as a Characteristic ID (UUID) with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' only restates the schema, adding no new meaning.

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 clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (one product characteristic), and the access pattern (by ID). This distinguishes it from list_characteristics and get_characteristic_group without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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?

'By ID' makes it clear the tool is the single-record lookup for a characteristic when a specific characteristic UUID is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the query context is unambiguous enough.

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