get_attribute

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that this tool gets attribute details but does not return values/terms, pointing to list_attribute_terms for that. It also notes the fields param for partial responses, which is extra context not directly inferred from annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by providing relevant usage guidance. No fluff 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 get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, suggests a related tool for values, and mentions the fields param. The schema fills in the parameter details, and annotations cover safety. No significant gaps remain.

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% (both id and fields have descriptions). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema—'fields param to request only needed fields' essentially restates the schema's 'Comma-separated fields to return'. Therefore, baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a global product attribute.' It uses a specific verb (get) and identifies the resource (global product attribute), distinguishing it from siblings like list_attributes (listing) and create_attribute (creation).

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 provides explicit alternative guidance: 'Use list_attribute_terms with the attribute ID to see its values.' This tells the agent when to use a different tool, which is excellent contextual guidance. It also mentions using the fields param for selective requests, further clarifying usage.

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