bookshelf_get_delayprofile

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, the description offers no additional behavioral context (e.g., 404 behavior or relationship to other profiles) beyond what the annotation implies. This meets the baseline for annotated read tools.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information: action, resource, and key parameter. No wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

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?

This is a minimal single-entity fetch tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a read-only annotation. The description is appropriately complete for this complexity; return values are covered by the output schema, and no additional preconditions or side effects exist.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the parameter's role ('by id'), linking the integer id to the delayprofile being fetched. While it doesn't explain the id format or constraints, the schema already provides type and required status, and the meaning is self-evident.

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 the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('a single delayprofile'), with the scope 'by id' distinguishing it from list operations. Sibling tools like bookshelf_list_delayprofile and create/update/delete variants make the specific getter purpose unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving one delayprofile by its id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set (list, create, update, delete) makes it obvious when to use this getter. No exclusions are needed for such a simple read operation.

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