get_blog_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It clearly states the tool is read-only, describes the return fields and the non-error 'not-found' behavior, and warns about potential ambiguity with shared timestamps. The only minor omission is not specifying the exact return structure or whether it includes pagination.

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 four sentences, each with distinct value: purpose, safety, error handling, and edge-case warning. It is front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and presence of an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers purpose, behavioral edges, and warnings adequately. The omission of timestamp format detail is minor and acceptable for a tool with just one parameter and no nested objects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single parameter 'blog_published_at' is a publication timestamp for identifying the row, which aligns with the schema. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., ISO 8601) or validation constraints beyond that, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 specifies a clear verb ('read'), a specific resource ('blog summary row'), and the unique identifier ('publication timestamp'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'upsert_blog_summary' and 'get_lead_profile' by focusing on reading a blog summary.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: reading a single blog summary by timestamp. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling list and the read-only nature imply a contrast with upsert_blog_summary. Some guidance on the 'not-found' and 'warnings' behavior aids correct usage.

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