hb_describe_operation

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and with no output schema the description does real work by disclosing that side effects (credits, health data, destructive, idempotency) and documented errors are returned. It doesn't state pagination, size limits, or behavior for invalid operation_ids, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the return contents and closes with the actionable directive 'Read this before any write.' No filler, though the enumerated list is long enough to border on a run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so exhaustively: parameters, body schema with required fields and an example, required scope, side effects, errors, and a ready-to-use call. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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% and the single operation_id parameter already carries an example ('hub.candidates.list'); the description adds no further semantics about the identifier format or lookup behavior beyond referencing the example call. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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/resource ('Full detail of one operation') and enumerates exactly what it returns, which cleanly separates it from hb_search_operations (find operations) and hb_call_operation (execute one). An agent can pick this without opening 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?

'Read this before any write' gives a clear directive on when to invoke it and implicitly positions it as the precursor to hb_call_operation. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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