get_rf_prediction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. However, for a simple getter, the behavior is straightforward and no side effects or special conditions are expected. The description adds no further context (e.g., error handling, rate limits), but this is not a significant gap for a read-only fetch-by-ID operation.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is exactly as concise as needed.

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-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core functionality. It does not detail the returned fields, but the term 'details' reasonably covers that, and the simplicity of the operation makes additional context unnecessary.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema; 'by ID' simply restates the prediction_id parameter, and the fields parameter's effect on output is not elaborated, but the schema covers its syntax.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific reach & frequency prediction') with an explicit method ('by ID'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_rf_predictions (which lists all predictions) and create_rf_prediction/delete_rf_prediction.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific prediction ID and need its details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' scope and sibling names make the intended usage clear without ambiguity.

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