agencydetail

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. 'Get agency detailed information' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid agency IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 at just three words: 'Get agency detailed information.' Every word earns its place - 'Get' specifies the action, 'agency' identifies the resource, and 'detailed information' distinguishes it from summary views. There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal but complete phrase.

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 context of a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, what format it returns, or provide any examples. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about agencies, more context about the return value would be helpful since there's no output schema to guide the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agencyId' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid agency ID, where to find them, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter 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 'Get agency detailed information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('agency detailed information'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'agencylist' or 'agentsdetail' - it's unclear what 'detailed information' means compared to what other tools provide. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 versus alternatives. With siblings like 'agencylist', 'agentsdetail', 'propertiesdetail', and others, there's no indication whether this is for retrieving a single agency's full profile versus summary information, or whether it should be used before/after other agency-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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