get_learner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects (none expected). It also doesn't mention pagination or response format, though an output schema exists. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a concise parameter-placement rule. Every clause adds information, and the description is short enough to be absorbed quickly by an agent.

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 simple GET endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, the HTTP method, and where to put parameters. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that learnerId is required (though the endpoint implies it) or describe what happens if it's missing. Given the schema marks all parameters as optional, an agent might call without path_params and receive an error. This minor omission prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying the roles of the three parameter objects: path_params for route identifiers (like learnerId), and query for filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values. Body is not mentioned, which is fine for a GET. This mapping is valuable and helps the agent construct a valid request, even though it doesn't enumerate specific query keys.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('learner details'), and explicitly names the REST endpoint with the {learnerId} placeholder. This unambiguously distinguishes it from list_learners (plural) and other account-scoped tools. The intent is immediately obvious without needing to inspect the schema.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: retrieve a single learner by ID. It provides guidance on how to structure the call (path_params for route IDs, query for filtering/pagination/sorting/include). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_learners or state when not to use it, though the singular 'learner details' and the endpoint make the use case fairly evident.

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