Get Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add what the annotations cannot say: the credit cost ("Costs 1 credit") and the shape of the payload (name and addresses). That is genuinely useful non-structured context, though it omits error behavior for an invalid or foreign bundle id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the id-discovery route, then the cost. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (name and addresses), how to obtain the id, and the credit cost. A minor gap remains around failure modes for unknown ids, but the tool is otherwise callable with confidence.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it; the description adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond telling the agent where to get ids. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (one bundle by id) + scope (single bundle, not a list), plus a statement of what is included in the response (name and addresses). This clearly distinguishes it from octav_list_bundles and the bundle-mutation siblings.

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?

"Use octav_list_bundles to find bundle ids" explicitly routes the agent to the sibling that supplies the required identifier, which is the main precondition for calling this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., auth/credits required), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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