Get tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a ParameterError is raised on invalid parameters and hints that with_snapshots widens the response, but says nothing about auth requirements or what the response actually contains.

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 Args/Returns/Raises structure is front-loaded and compact, with no wasted prose. The Returns line is boilerplate-ish but not bloated.

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 two-parameter read lookup this is roughly adequate: parameters, error behavior and read-only nature are covered. But with no output schema, the vague 'response object from the GET request' leaves the return shape and the effect of with_snapshots underspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden, and it does document both parameters including the useful 'ID or abid' distinction. However it gives no format examples, defaults, or explanation of what including snapshots changes in the payload, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource ('Get a specific Tag') and distinguishes the singular lookup from the plural sibling archivebox_get_tags by emphasizing 'a specific Tag by id or abid'. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly names the list alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this lookup versus archivebox_get_tags or archivebox_get_any. The 'id or abid' note is descriptive, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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