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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states 'get one part by id' without disclosing whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the id does not exist, or what the return structure is. This is minimal disclosure for a simple retrieval tool.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the essential action and parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and error handling. It provides none of that. For a tool with only one parameter and a clear 'get' action, some context about the response or missing-id behavior is still expected, but the description is too sparse to be fully complete.

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 has one parameter 'id' with type string and no description (schema coverage 0%). The description adds meaning by stating 'id で' (by id), clarifying that the id is the lookup key. However, it does not provide format, examples, or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'id でパーツ1件取得' translates to 'Get one part by id', which is a specific verb (get) plus resource (part) plus scope (single item by id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like parts_list and parts_search, which handle multiple or search-based retrieval.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied: use it when you have a specific id and need a single part. However, no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the 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.