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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves details, without mentioning whether it is read-only, what output format to expect, how errors are handled, or whether the data is static or dynamic. This is minimal for a tool that may have side effects or require special permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It delivers the core purpose immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate but leaves 'full details' undefined. Given siblings that cover specific aspects (holdings, metrics, NAV history), it is unclear whether this tool returns a superset or just basic scheme information, making the description incomplete for confident tool selection.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear example ('SM001001') and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details for an NPS scheme' clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (NPS scheme). It distinguishes from aspect-specific siblings like get_nps_holdings and get_nps_metrics by implying a comprehensive view, though it doesn't specify which fields are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_nps_schemes or get_nps_reference. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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