get-criterion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output includes description, conformance level, and implementation notes, but does not disclose error handling, response format, or any read-only guarantee. As a 'get' tool, behavioral traits are mostly implicit.

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 sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return content, and valid ID format. Missing mention of error behavior for invalid IDs is minor.

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%, already describing the 'id' parameter with one example. The description adds a second example ('A.3.1.2') and confirms valid ID formats, which is marginal value beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific ATAG 2.0 success criterion'), with concrete examples ('B.2.3.1', 'A.3.1.2'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get-criteria-by-level' (which returns multiple criteria) and 'search-atag' (which is for searching).

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 clearly implies usage when a specific criterion ID is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context of sibling tool names provides some implicit guidance.

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