get_tag_details

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. It states the tool finds information (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The link to Coinranking's page adds minimal context but lacks operational details needed for safe 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Coinranking's categories page adds context but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., tag metadata, associated coins), error handling, or usage constraints. For a data-fetching tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how slug relates to tag selection or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Find information about a specific tag.' It specifies the resource (tag) and verb (find information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_list_of_tags' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction. The mention of Coinranking's categories page adds context but doesn't fully clarify functional uniqueness.

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. It mentions the categories page but doesn't explain when to fetch tag details versus other tag-related operations or coin data tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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