get_need

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 states the operation is read-only and that an error object is returned if the Need is missing, plus it lists the kind of data returned. This is solid coverage for a simple read tool, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, when to use it, and which sibling tools handle state changes. The key facts are front-loaded and there is 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 tool has one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shapes in detail. It covers purpose, usage timing, missing-object behavior, read-only nature, and alternatives, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents need_id as coming from list_needs or create_need. The description adds context about using it after list_needs, but does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Need by id plus its provenance receipts.' It also names the key data included (acceptance criteria, pay_to wallets, history), which differentiates it from list_needs and get_receipts without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'after list_needs when you need acceptance criteria, pay_to wallets, and history.' It also names the state-changing alternatives (fund_need, record_payment, claim_need, complete_need), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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