Get Technician Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds that a 'full record' is returned, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether the record could be null for a valid-looking ID. With annotations handling the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. 'Get a single technician's full record by internal ID' front-loads the action, resource, and retrieval key in a compact, readable form. Every word contributes.

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 lookup tool with one required parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description plus parameter schema fully cover what an agent needs. The 'full record' phrase sets correct expectations about return content, and the single parameter leaves little room for ambiguity.

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% because tech_id is documented as 'Internal numeric technician ID.' The description's 'by internal ID' reinforces this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, such as where the ID comes from or how to discover it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single technician's full record'), and the qualifier 'by internal ID' clearly distinguishes this from list-oriented siblings like get_techs. An agent can immediately tell this is an ID-based detail lookup, not a search or list operation.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a technician's internal ID, but it never explicitly states when to use this instead of get_techs or any search tool. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the 'by internal ID' phrase.

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