get_node_access

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden; it does disclose 'Read-only' and explains a non-obvious behavior — that an empty list with private: false means public/visible to everyone. It omits permission requirements, error cases, and pagination or result shape beyond field hints.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core access semantics are front-loaded before the read-only note. The 'PROVIDER:' prefix is a terse scoping cue rather than wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing return content (emails, domains, organizations, private flag), which is helpful. However it leaves the required node_id unexplained and never confirms what the call actually returns (a list vs. an object).

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 single node_id parameter is required but has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a node_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. For a one-parameter tool this is the main gap.

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 conveys the resource — the access list controlling who can rent a node — and 'Read-only' signals a fetch rather than a mutation. But no explicit verb is used, and the sibling set_node_access is never named, so the agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves while set_node_access writes.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus set_node_access, update_node, or list_my_nodes, and no prerequisites (e.g., node ownership) are given. The only guidance is the semantic of the returned data, not when to invoke the tool.

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