fetch_a_pie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no side-effects are expected. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (settings and instruments), though it omits potential rate limits or pagination (not applicable here).

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 compact paragraph with clear sections: purpose, usage, argument, returns. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding with zero fluff.

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 a simple 1-parameter tool and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to use it, what it returns. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage on the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's nature (numeric ID), providing an example (6894572), and linking it to fetch_pies. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 specifies 'Get full details for a single pie' and enumerates exact contents (allocations, weights, P/L, settings), clearly differentiating from sibling fetch_pies which lists pie IDs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use fetch_pies first to obtain the pie ID, then call this tool for details, providing a clear sequential workflow and disambiguation from other pie-related tools.

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