bookshelf_get_wanted_cutoff

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

The description provides no additional behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't mention return format, error handling, or any constraints. Since annotations already declare it as read-only, there is minimal added context.

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 is perfectly concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema, read-only annotation), the description is mostly complete. It could mention the list endpoint to discover ids, but it adequately conveys the core operation. Output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description only says 'by id', which is redundant with the parameter name. It doesn't clarify what the id refers to or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('single wanted cutoff by id'), distinguishing it from list_wanted_cutoff which returns multiple records. It is specific and 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 description implies usage when you have a specific id, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could be improved by referencing bookshelf_list_wanted_cutoff for enumerating ids, but the intent is reasonably clear from the word 'single'.

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