get_srs_level_details

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

The description notes 'with pagination', indicating a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no items exist. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key parameter details without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters (one with enum), the description is too sparse. It omits response structure, sorting, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 67% (level and reviewable_type have descriptions, page does not). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond 'with pagination'—it does not explain the 'page' parameter's effect or default value, leaving an ambiguity.

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 clearly states it retrieves items filtered by SRS level with pagination, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_reviews' or 'get_srs_overview'. However, it omits the reviewable_type filter, which is a key aspect of the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_item' for a single item, 'get_reviews' for review history). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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