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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions reaching concluded listings as well as current ones, and explains the two response paths—full record when under budget, section outline over budget—with the promise that nothing is truncated. This goes beyond what annotations convey and gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 compact yet information-dense. It leads with the core action and data fields, immediately contrasts with the sibling search tool, then explains the budget behavior and the sections mechanism. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 (fetch by ID, optional sections), the description covers all needed context: what it returns, when to use it (after search), how to handle over-budget responses, and the response guarantee (no truncation). An output schema exists, so return value details are covered. It also differentiates from all 10 siblings effectively. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter meaning by explaining that the 'sections' parameter expects names from an outline response and clarifies the self-contained nature (re-fetches and slices, no repeated calls). It also adds the note about identity metadata always being returned. These details go beyond the schema descriptions and help the agent use parameters correctly, justifying a 4.

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 precisely states the action ('Fetch a training listing by ReliefWeb numeric ID') and enumerates the exact data included (full description, registration instructions, event link, cost/fee, dates, languages, organizing source). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool (reliefweb_search_training) which returns summaries, so an agent can easily distinguish it from other get_* siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after reliefweb_search_training' and explains the difference (search returns summaries without description, registration instructions, or cost detail). It also instructs on the sections parameter for over-budget responses, covering both normal and edge-case usage. No ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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