Get a logic write-up

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only, closed-world nature while adding value beyond them: the id-provenance requirement and the cost warning ('This is the expensive call'). It stops short of stating nothing about rate limits or partial-failure behavior for bad ids, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched, then the id precondition, then the cost/section optimization. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the returned document's parts and the section names, so an agent knows what it will receive. Combined with the id prerequisite and cost guidance, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description goes further by mapping section values to intent ('how-it-works' to understand the mechanism, 'code' to see the Luau) and by explaining why `sections` exists (token cost). The `id` provenance rule also adds meaning beyond the schema's format note.

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 ('Fetch') plus resource ('the full write-up for one logic') and enumerates the content returned: problem, numbered mechanism, Luau, pitfalls, source links. This clearly separates it from sibling listers/searchers like search_logics, list_logics and find_related.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Call it only with an id returned by search_logics, list_logics or find_related — ids are not guessable') and names the alternative tools that produce valid ids. It also guides section-level usage ('pass `sections` to pull just what you need') with concrete selecting conditions.

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