get_gtt

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but nothing is said about error behavior for an invalid or expired trigger id, what fields are returned, or whether the GTT must be in a particular state.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting useful detail rather than from tight editing.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description would need to say what 'details' comprises and how an agent obtains a valid trigger_id. As written, an agent knows the intent but not the contract.

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 schema has zero description coverage for trigger_id, and the description only restates that the lookup is 'by trigger id' without clarifying the format or that the value originates from get_gtts/place_gtt. It confirms the identifier's role but adds little operational detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a single GTT order') and the 'single' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_gtts list tool. It doesn't explicitly name get_gtts as the alternative, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'single GTT order by trigger id' suggests you call it on a known trigger_id rather than enumerating, which contrasts with get_gtts, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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