QMetry: Fetch Requirement 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 safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires the internal numeric ID rather than the entity key, explains that version is required with 1 meaning latest, and states that the response includes all custom fields and metadata. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized with bolded sections and front-loads the core purpose, but it is redundant: parameter text duplicates the schema, Output Description and Expected Output repeat each other, and several Use Cases restate the same point. The useful hints are buried after a lot of repetitive material.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides the complete calling picture: required parameters, how to resolve entityKey to numeric ID, version defaulting, expected output fields, and a concrete example. For a read-only fetch of a single requirement by ID/version, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by giving concrete guidance: version defaults to 1 for latest, entityKey must first be resolved via FETCH_REQUIREMENTS, and an example payload shows realistic values. It repeats the schema's parameter text, but the hints and example make the numeric-ID/version semantics more actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information for a specific QMetry requirement by numeric ID.' It further differentiates itself from the list-oriented sibling by stating this tool returns details 'not available in the list view' and by explicitly warning that the numeric ID is not the entity key.

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 Hints section explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative: if the user provides an entityKey, first call FETCH_REQUIREMENTS to resolve it, then call this tool. It also gives the default version behavior ('use 1 for the latest version unless user specifies otherwise') and identifies this as the tool for complete requirement information beyond the list view.

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