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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the fields to be returned are listed. However, it does not mention what happens if the object is not found or any potential errors, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields. It lacks error-handling or edge-case details, but for tool selection and invocation, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only says 'by ID', which identifies object_id as the identifier, but does not specify format, constraints, or any additional semantics beyond the field name.

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 'Get' and names the resource 'Sui object details' with lookup by ID, listing the key fields (type, owner, version). This clearly distinguishes it from the protocol and DeFi-focused sibling tools.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when you have an object ID and need its details. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the context is fairly clear given the distinct resource type compared to siblings.

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