Show Affliction Type

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds endpoint info and required parameters, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. However, it includes endpoint and API details that may be extraneous, and contains a minor error (Incidents vs Affliction Type).

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 (show by ID), the description adequately conveys the return type (JSON object) and required parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling or what happens if the resource is not found, and no output schema is provided.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing parameter details. The description mentions required parameters (already clear from schema) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining page/per_page parameters.

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 it returns a specified Affliction Type, using the verb 'Returns' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_affliction_types, but contains a minor error (refers to 'Incidents' instead of 'Affliction Type').

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 indicates to use this tool to fetch full details of a specific item by its identifier, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_affliction_types for listing.

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