get_treaty

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Get' correctly implies a read-only operation, which is the main safety signal for a single-ID fetch, and it hints at response content (status, dates, parties). It says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid ID, error handling, or rate limits.

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 line 'international agreement, treaty, diplomatic' is search-bait, and the return content is stated twice ('Returns treaty details including status, dates, parties' as a header line and again in the Returns block). The core purpose is front-loaded, but there is measurable redundancy.

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 - it mentions them anyway, which is harmless redundancy. For a one-parameter get-by-id tool with an output schema, nothing critical is missing; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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%, but there is only one parameter and the description meaningfully elaborates it: an alphanumeric string obtained from search results. That adds format and provenance beyond the schema's bare 'Treaty Id'. Coverage is adequate for a single-param tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific treaty.' It is clearly a fetch-by-id tool, and the mention that the ID comes 'from search results' implicitly distinguishes it from search_treaties. However, it never names the sibling search tools it complements, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'treaty_id: The treaty ID (alphanumeric string from search results)' implies you run a search first, which is useful ordering context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative (search_treaties / search_treaties_advanced). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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