get_si_procedure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool returns workflow steps, but never states that it is a read-only lookup, how missing/invalid IDs are handled, or whether any auth is needed. For a no-annotation tool this leaves real gaps.

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 keyword/purpose line is front-loaded and useful, but 'Returns procedure details including workflow steps' appears twice (once in the body, once under Returns), and 'Get SI procedure details' restates the name. There is avoidable duplication in an otherwise short payload.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and for a single-required-parameter lookup the coverage is close to sufficient. The main omission is behavioral (read-only confirmation, error behavior) rather than structural.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies procedure_id as an alphanumeric string sourced from get_si_procedures, which is meaningfully more than the bare schema type. It could still say what happens if the ID is stale or malformed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SI procedure details'), and the keyword line adds domain context (statutory instrument procedure, affirmative, negative). The singular 'procedure' vs the sibling 'get_si_procedures' implies list-vs-single, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the Args note that procedure_id comes 'from get_si_procedures' hints that the list tool must be called first, which is a useful sequencing cue. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of what to do if the ID is unknown or invalid.

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