instrument_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints that the result includes "criteria versions and resolution state," which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about read-only nature, not-found behavior, permission requirements, or whether the record is resolved vs. pending. Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the leading "T0" token is unexplained overhead and the phrasing is noun-phrase fragments rather than a front-loaded statement of action. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter this could be adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least clarify id semantics and the not-found/read-only contract. The "criteria versions and resolution state" clause partially compensates but is itself opaque.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single required parameter. "Core id" is the only clue about what instrument_id means; there is no format, example, or distinction from other id types (e.g., external ids). Marginal added meaning over an undocumented string parameter.

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?

"One canonical Instrument by core id" conveys a single-record lookup keyed by an identifier, which is enough to separate it from instrument_search and instrument_ingest by implication. However, it never uses a clear verb (fetch/retrieve) and the leading token "T0" is unexplained jargon that does not help an agent. Purpose is inferable rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative (instrument_search) is never mentioned or excluded. The agent must guess whether this tool is for exact-id lookup only and when to prefer search. Only the word "canonical" hints at a use case (authoritative single record).

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