bookshelf_get_qualitydefinition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation; the description adds no extra behavioral context such as not-found behavior, authorization requirements, or side effects. It merely restates the action without going beyond what the annotation and name already convey.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

For a simple getter with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual details like error behavior or when to prefer this over list. It does not explain what the output schema contains, but that is covered by the output schema itself.

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 defines a single required integer 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'by id' adds minimal meaning, essentially repeating the parameter name without explaining what the id represents, any constraints, or how it is used.

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 states a clear verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('qualitydefinition'), and a scope ('single', 'by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_qualitydefinition and update_qualitydefinition.

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 phrase 'by id' implicitly indicates the tool is for retrieving a specific qualitydefinition when an id is available, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_qualitydefinition. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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