bookshelf_get_wanted_missing

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

The description 'fetch' aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, so there is no contradiction. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond that—no mention of error handling, response shape, or any side effects. With annotations already declaring read-only intent, the description adds little extra value.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable. 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that it returns the full resource or what happens if not found, but those are covered by the output schema or standard conventions. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explicitly mentions 'by id', assigning semantic meaning to the single required parameter. It clarifies that the id is the identifier used to select the wanted missing item. This compensates for the bare schema, though it does not explain what 'wanted missing' means.

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 verb (fetch), the resource (single wanted missing), and the lookup mechanism (by id). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling list_wanted_missing tool, which would return multiple items, and from get_wanted_cutoff which targets a different resource.

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 context is implied by the phrase 'Fetch a single ... by id', suggesting use when you have a specific id and want one item. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the list_wanted_missing sibling or mention scenarios where one should prefer this over a list call. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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