getCharacteristicById

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information,' which implies a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The agent must infer that this is a safe query, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.

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 sentence of 8 words, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is maximally concise with no redundant information, earning its place 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it does not explain the structure of the return value or any pagination/error behavior. For a tool with no output schema, some indication of what 'information' is returned would improve completeness. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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% (the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The ID of the characteristic'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance understanding.

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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('characteristic'), and specifies the lookup method ('by its ID'). It is unambiguous, though 'information' is vague and does not distinguish from other tools beyond the ID parameter. A more specific description of what information is returned would improve clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention sibling tools. Given the large set of sibling tools with similar lookup patterns, this is a significant gap.

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