bbb_scamtracker_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the normalized return shape, the 'when known' caveat for scammer contact fields, and the credential-free public nature of the data. It does not cover error behavior or explicit read-only status, but for a simple get-by-id tool it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states the action, and the second densely lists the returned fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it lists return fields, notes normalization and optional data, and identifies the public credential-free source. It does not explicitly instruct the agent to obtain the id via bbb_scamtracker_search, but the schema parameter description covers that linkage.

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%, and the schema's parameter description already explains the id comes from a bbb-scamtracker-search result's id or URL. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a Better Business Bureau Scam Tracker report') and enumerates the return fields, making the tool's function explicit. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like bbb_scamtracker_search and bbb_scamtracker_state_stats by specifying it returns a single normalized report.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve one detailed report, which is clear context for an agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one normalized report' phrasing and the parameter schema's reference to search results provide adequate guidance.

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