get_ker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description's mention of plausibility, evidence, and quantitative-support text is response-content color, but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant and adds little behavioral context.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient, though the trailing list of returned fields is largely covered by the output schema and could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. The notable gap is the unexplained ker_id parameter, which an agent must guess the format and source of.

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% and the single required parameter ker_id is never mentioned in the description. There is no indication of what form a ker_id takes or where to obtain one (e.g. from list_kers), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single key event relationship), which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural list_kers sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with get_key_event or get_aop, so differentiation relies on the reader knowing the KER vs KE distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. It never says when to reach for get_ker versus list_kers or the bulk KER-related siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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