get_ai_search_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get details' implies a read-only fetch, but it does not mention whether the call can fail, what happens for a missing instance, authentication requirements, or what kind of detail fields are returned. This is thin behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is minimal in substance. It is efficient but stops short of being a fully informative definition.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least convey the return nature or usage context. It does not mention the two required identifiers, the relationship to list_ai_search_instances, or any expected output. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves an agent guessing beyond 'fetch details.'

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the schema descriptions are minimal but adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured parameter info covers the gap.

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 and resource: 'Get details of an AI Search instance.' It clearly indicates a single-instance retrieval operation and is distinguishable from the sibling list_ai_search_instances by the get/list pattern, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus list_ai_search_instances or get_ai_search_job. It does not mention that an instance ID would typically be obtained from a list operation, nor does it describe any prerequisites or preferred usage context.

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