linear_getManagedOAuthApplicationById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond ownership scope. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. Front-loads the main action and constraint. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It could mention the 'id' parameter but otherwise covers purpose and limitations.

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 one 'id' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specific verb 'Get' and specifies 'alpha child OAuth application owned by the calling OAuth application', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_getManagedOAuthApplications. It also explicitly states what it cannot do, removing ambiguity.

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 states when to use the tool (retrieve a specific owned OAuth app) and when not (cannot retrieve arbitrary workspace OAuth app). While it implies alternatives, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for listing.

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