get_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly identifies a read-only lookup by using 'Get' and enumerates the response contents, but it does not address edge cases such as invalid slugs, error behavior, or whether any authentication is required. Still, for a simple retrieval tool, the behavioral profile is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists what is included. No wasted words.

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?

The description effectively explains what data will be returned and indicates the need for a slug. It lacks explicit guidance on choosing between get_tool and the more specialized siblings, and has no output schema, but the one-parameter contract plus content list makes it mostly complete.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single slug parameter, including examples and guidance to use search_tools first. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond calling it 'a specific software tool', so the schema carries the meaning.

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 ('detailed information about a specific software tool') and enumerates the included fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_pricing or get_alternatives, which overlap with the listed contents.

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 implies this is for retrieving details about a single known tool, but it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention sibling tools. The only usage hint ('Use search_tools first if you don't know the slug') lives in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description.

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