clio_get_damage

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only notes routing and scope (JWT/tenant/company) but does not disclose that it is a read operation, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., if damage not found), or any side effects. The name implies read-only but not confirmed.

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?

Description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and route. However, the first sentence essentially repeats the tool name, which is wasteful. Could be more informative per sentence.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'arguments' JSON should contain, what the output format is (output schema exists but not used in description), or any prerequisites. Agent lacks sufficient context to use correctly.

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 has one parameter ('arguments') with 0% description coverage. Description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but does not specify what keys are needed (e.g., damage ID). This is minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description is vague: it states 'Clio connector operation get_damage' but does not specify what a 'damage' is or that it retrieves a single damage record. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like clio_list_damages or clio_get_contact, as the purpose is generic.

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 usage guidance provided. Does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_damages, clio_update_damage, etc. No when-not or context for selection.

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