get_topic_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It highlights a critical behavioral detail: filter policies list required message attributes, and publishers must include them or 'messages are silently dropped.' This warns about a failure mode beyond what a simple 'get' would imply. It also implies a read-only operation via 'Returns,' though it doesn't explicitly state safety.

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 three sentences: the first states the return value, the second explains an important behavioral consequence, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, a key caveat about message attributes, and when to use it. It doesn't mention data freshness limits, but the schema parameter description covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with maxAgeSeconds fully described in the schema (including dataHealth and refresh behavior). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the parameter's semantics thoroughly.

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 tool returns SNS topics with specific details (subscription count, encryption status, filter policies). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('SNS topics'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_eventbridge_details or get_queue_details.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before writing any SNS publish code or when reviewing event fan-out patterns.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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