get_visa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses a key privacy-relevant behavior: 'The user will be prompted for consent before any data is returned.' This goes beyond the schema and is critical for an agent to set expectations. It does not cover other behaviors (e.g., what happens if consent is denied), but the consent note adds substantial 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the essential consent disclosure. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 retrieval tool with detailed schema and a consent note, the description is largely complete. It covers the main action and a critical behavioral aspect, but it omits mention of what happens if the user denies consent or if the document_id is missing when multiple visas exist (though the latter is in the schema). Given the tool's low complexity and rich schema, these gaps are acceptable but not negligible.

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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds only a slight nuance by referencing 'specific fields' and linking 'purpose' to consent, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or values beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve specific fields') applied to a specific resource ('a stored visa'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_passport and get_national_id by naming the visa type and the selective nature of the retrieval. This makes the tool's function 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 the tool is used when you need a subset of visa data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_document or list_documents, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'specific fields' phrasing hints at selective retrieval, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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