featureDetails

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe for reads. The description does not add much beyond that; it does not mention specific behaviors like error handling, response format, or the structure of the returned details. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value, earning a 3.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key concept ('What one discovery feature offers') before specifying the qualifier. It is efficient and does not waste words, though it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'retrieves details'). It earns a 4 for strong conciseness and structure.

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 tool with one parameter, a clear schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on the return format, but there is no output schema to hint at that, and the tool's simplicity means an agent can likely infer the response shape. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the title is not found. Overall complete enough for its simplicity.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'title' parameter. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on format, examples, or constraints. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to add more.

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 tool returns feature details by title, focusing on the capabilities behind a collection. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'collectionFeatureDetails' which likely handles a different aspect of collections. The verb 'offers' is somewhat vague, but the resource (discovery feature) and the qualifier (by title) make the purpose clear enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 usage: to get details of a single feature by its title. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the sibling list contains 'collectionFeatureDetails' which suggests a complementary tool for collection-level details. The context does not provide explicit exclusions, but the description is clear enough about its scope, earning a 4 for providing clear context without explicit alternatives.

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