Get favorite detail

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying 'authenticated' (indicating authentication is required) and detailing the returned data (favorite state, category, note, timestamp). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so the description complements rather than contradicts.

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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose and returned fields but lacks guidance on parameter relationships (e.g., precedence when both gallery and galleryUrl are provided) and expected input constraints. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain how to specify the gallery (via gallery object or galleryUrl) or the role of the site parameter. For a 3-parameter tool with nested objects, this is a significant 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Read') and specific resource ('one gallery's authenticated favorite state, category, note, and favorite timestamp'). It distinguishes from siblings like eh_get_favorite_categories (which retrieves categories) and eh_search_favorites (which searches favorites) by targeting a single gallery's details.

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 description implies this tool is for reading favorite details, not modifying them. While it explicitly says 'without modifying it,' it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives for related operations like adding favorites. However, given the sibling tool set and annotations, the usage context is clear enough.

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