tes_resource_detail

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

Although annotations are absent, the description discloses key behavioral constraints: attachments are metadata only, only the most recent page of reviews is returned, and the downloadable file is explicitly not returned due to robots.txt. This goes beyond a generic 'get' description and sets proper expectations for what the tool does and does not return.

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 a compact block of two sentences that front-loads the verb and resource. It is slightly dense with dash clauses, making it a touch harder to parse, but every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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 detail tool with no output schema, the description lists the main return groups (descriptive facts, attachment metadata, reviews) and explicitly states what is not returned. It omits details about the exact response format and the country parameter's effect, but remains sufficient to set expectations correctly.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds context that id is numeric and should come from tes-resource-search, which is helpful, but says nothing about the country parameter's behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the main burden.

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 ('a Tes teaching resource'). It clearly distinguishes from search tools by specifying that it returns one resource by numeric id, references tes-resource-search as the source of the id, and enumerates what is returned. This separates it from sibling tools like tes_resource_search and tes_resource_shop.

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 gives a clear usage context: call this when you already have a resource id from tes-resource-search and need normalized detail. It implies the search tool is the prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the id dependency is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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