gr_comp_get_merger

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

Without any annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the case number is invalid, or any authorization requirements. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence. While it lacks detail, it is not verbose and front-loads the core action and resource. For its length, it is efficient.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It omits return value structure, error handling, and any side effects, leaving the agent underinformed. Completeness is minimal.

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 100% for the single parameter 'case_number', which is described in the schema as 'HCC merger case number'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating 'by case number'. With high coverage, 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 retrieves a specific HCC merger decision by case number. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gr_comp_get_decision' which likely handles non-merger decisions.

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 implies use when you have a case number for a merger, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'gr_comp_search_mergers' for searching) or any prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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