get_chain_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the chain doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in 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?

The description is appropriately brief with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, documenting the parameter, and describing the return value. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor points deducted for the generic 'Dictionary containing chain details' which could be more specific.

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?

Given zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'chain details' includes, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how this differs from similar tools. For a tool in a complex Kroger API context, more contextual information is needed.

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. It documents the single parameter 'chain_name' and explains it's 'Name of the chain to get details for', which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements, examples, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity about valid inputs.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific Kroger chain', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_chains' by focusing on a single chain's details rather than listing multiple chains. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_chain_exists' or 'list_chains'. It mentions a specific chain is required but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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