get_sinkhole

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about required permissions, pagination/consistency behavior, or what happens when the ID does not exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint (by ID, for an account) stated immediately; no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably so terse that it leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter point lookup whose inputs are fully described by the schema, and it has no output schema, so return-shape documentation is not strictly required. An agent has enough to invoke it, though it offers nothing on failure modes or ID provenance.

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 both account_id and sinkhole_id are already documented as required string IDs in the schema. The description adds no format, scope, or sourcing detail beyond that (e.g., where the sinkhole_id comes from), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (DNS sinkhole), and the retrieval key (by ID) scoped to a Cloudflare account, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_sinkholes and list_sinkhole_ingresses. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the caller must already hold a sinkhole ID (presumably from list_sinkholes), which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the list variant, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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