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 description does not need to restate those. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, permission requirements, or data redaction), but it also does not contradict 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and lookup key. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. Nothing else about invocation or behavior is needed for a capable agent.

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% coverage, with the parameter 'clientId' described as 'Public OAuth client ID'. The description merely repeats that same semantic ('public client ID') without adding new details like format, length, or example values. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single OAuth client'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('by its public client ID'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like oauth.clients.list (plural, no ID) and oauth.clients.create/delete/rotate_secret.

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 implies the intended use case (you have a public client ID and need that one client) but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like list or rotate_secret. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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