get_program

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, and it discloses almost nothing: not what happens on a miss, whether ambiguity errors vs. returns a best match, nor any auth or rate-limit context. Only '(full object)' hints at return weight.

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 tight sentence with zero padding, and the resource plus lookup keys are front-loaded. Brevity tips into under-specification rather than waste, but nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers enough to attempt a call but omits error/ambiguity behavior and return format detail beyond '(full object)'. Adequate minimum, not 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has an empty description, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by listing three accepted identifier forms, but gives no syntax detail (handle format, case sensitivity, examples) and never says how ambiguity is resolved despite the word 'unambiguous'.

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 resource (one program) and the accepted lookup keys (id, handle, unambiguous name), plus the return shape ('full object'). It implies single-record retrieval versus the sibling find_programs, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 tool's purpose implies usage: call it when you already hold an identifier. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no routing advice for the obvious alternative (find_programs) when the name is ambiguous or only partial information is available.

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