Show Recycled Observation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and mentions the API endpoint, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences that front-load the main purpose. It includes the API section and endpoint without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence provides value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could be more specific about the returned JSON object's structure. It mentions returning 'a JSON object describing the requested Observations' but is vague. Also, optional parameters (page, per_page) are not mentioned, which might lead the agent to assume they are not useful. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter details. It mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but does not elaborate on optional parameters (page, per_page) or their effect. The baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 returns a specified Recycled Observation, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Recycled Observation'). It provides the API endpoint and section, distinguishing it from other observation-related tools (e.g., show_observation_item for active observations).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Observations by its identifier,' which indicates its purpose. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as show_observation_item for active observations. The context of siblings implies differentiation but is not explicit.

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