get_film_stock

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a read, but nothing is said about permission requirements, behavior on a miss (error vs empty), or whether name matching is exact or fuzzy. For a lookup tool with zero structured safety hints, this is thin.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no padding. Appropriate size for a single-parameter lookup.

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 a trivial one-param schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape, not-found behavior, and how name collisions are resolved, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 0% and the single property is named only 'id_or_name' with no description, so the description is doing real work by clarifying that the one field accepts either an identifier or a name. It does not specify format or matching rules, but it resolves the core ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 ('look up') and resource ('one film stock'), and the singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_film_stocks. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the verb form.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_film_stocks, nor any note about what to do when the id or name is ambiguous or not found. The agent must guess that this is the direct-retrieval path.

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