Get one mod record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', explains the absence of pagination, warns that the record is a catalog row rather than an install recommendation, and flags 'v0: all field paths unverified' as an important caveat. It does not mention error behavior or auth needs, but this is a simple single-record read.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: the field list, the catalog-vs-install clarification, the no-pagination note, the read-only flag, and the v0 caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description explains the expected return content, clarifies the semantic meaning of the record, rules out pagination, and discloses version uncertainty. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly, and to interpret what it gets back.

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 fully documents mod_id as a CurseForge numeric mod id with a minimum, maximum, and digits-only note. The description adds only the phrase 'numeric id', which does not meaningfully extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single CurseForge mod (project) record by numeric id.' It enumerates concrete returned fields and explicitly contrasts itself with list/search endpoints by calling itself a single-record endpoint, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool to use when you have a numeric mod id and need one catalog record. It also clarifies that pagination is not applicable, which prevents incorrect assumptions. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like search_mods or get_mod_file for when a different tool should be chosen.

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