FITsociety

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

The description says 'Retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but annotations mark readOnlyHint as false, suggesting the tool may not be read-only. This is a direct contradiction and makes the behavioral profile misleading.

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 concise sentences front-load the retrieval purpose and details, followed by the prerequisite guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the retrieval purpose and prerequisite, and an output schema exists so return details need no explanation. However, the contradiction in readOnlyHint leaves an agent uncertain whether the call mutates state, which is a significant completeness gap for a 'retrieve' tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for templateId, including the note that it is obtained from list_event_templates. The description repeats 'by templateId' and the same discovery hint without adding meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'full configuration details for a specific event template by templateId', listing the content (pricing, default coaches, booking, cancellation rules). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_event_templates by targeting a single template's details.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use list_event_templates first to discover templateIds, giving a clear prerequisite and sequencing guidance. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool should be called.

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

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

The description uses 'Retrieve' to signal a read-style operation and mentions pagination, but it does not disclose much beyond that. The annotations provide only weak signals (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description carries some burden; it meets it adequately without adding rich behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, provides helpful examples, and includes the critical pointer to the sibling tool in the second sentence.

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 list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, pagination, and the alternative for detailed data, leaving no major ambiguity for an 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 already documents both page and limit with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the word 'paginated', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('paginated summary list of configured event templates'), and it distinguishes itself from get_event_template by noting this is a summary list rather than full details. The examples 'classes, lesson types, or training sessions' further clarify the subject matter.

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 explicitly names the sibling tool get_event_template and gives the condition for using it instead: when complete details, pricing, or rules are needed. This gives an agent clear routing guidance and makes the tool's scope easy to identify.

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