getDataElementProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior of accepting either a name or URL, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what happens if both are provided or none, or any error conditions (e.g., not found). Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, dense sentence that lists the core information upfront and then mentions the alternative input. No filler words and all information is relevant. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does, the inputs, and the scope. The only minor gap is not disclosing default behavior when neither name nor URL is given, but given it's read-only and the schema marks all optional, the tool likely handles defaults. Overall complete.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, describing each parameter with examples and enums. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'dataElementUrl' is an alternative to 'name', but that is also implied in schema descriptions. No additional parameter meaning is needed, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads the definition of a DDIC data elementage and lists the key attributes (domain/built-in type, field labels, search help, parameter id). It is distinct from sibling tools like getDomainProperties or setDataElementProperties, which are obvious alternatives.

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 a read-only operation for retrieving metadata, which aligns with its intended use. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it vs alternatives (e.g., for writing use setDataElementProperties), but the verb 'Read' and the content make the context clear. The lack of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.

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