get_published_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns detail and engagements (comments and DM status), which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behaviors. The name 'get' implies read-only, but the description itself does not confirm it.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the key information. 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and return content. It could be improved by specifying the output shape or clarifying that engagements are included as part of the detail. Overall, it's an adequate but not exhaustive description.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' as an integer with no description. The description compensates by indicating that the id corresponds to a PublishedLeadMagnet, giving meaning to the parameter. This is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 provides the detail of a PublishedLeadMagnet plus its engagements (comments and DM status). This distinguishes it from list_published which lists items, and from other mutation tools in the sibling set. However, it does not explicitly contrast against any sibling, so it stops short of maximum clarity.

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 for retrieving detailed information for a single published lead magnet, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_published or other tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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