pl_dp_get_guideline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but it does not disclose what the returned document contains, error behavior if the ID is not found, or any other side effects. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral detail that could help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and parameter context.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential facts: what it does and how to identify the target document. The ID provenance is provided in the schema. The only minor gap is the lack of description of the return value, but for a get-by-ID tool, this is often self-explanatory from the name.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including a description that it is the 'Guideline database ID (from pl_dp_search_guidelines results)'. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get a specific UODO guidance document by its database ID.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'UODO guidance document' are specific, and the access method (by database ID) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_dp_search_guidelines, which would be used for searching.

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 that you use this tool when you have a database ID for a guidance document, and the input schema reinforces this by stating the id comes from pl_dp_search_guidelines results. This gives clear context that this tool is for retrieval after a search, not for searching itself. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient.

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