get_filing_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by scoping exactly what payload comes back (spectrum, orbital, signals, attachments, policy analysis), but omits any note on size, auth requirements, or whether all facets are always present versus conditional.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that puts the action and lookup keys first, then the return contents. The long facet enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it can avoid fetching separately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly, including the policy-filing-only fields. Minor gaps remain around the distinction between always-returned and conditionally-returned facets, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the error case for ambiguous file numbers. The description adds nothing beyond restating that either UUID or file number is accepted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific regulatory filing') with the lookup keys (UUID or agency file number) named. The enumeration of returned facets (spectrum data, orbital parameters, ground stations, signals, related filings, attachments, policy fields) makes it unmistakably distinct from search_filings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch companion to search_filings once a filing ID is known, but the description never says so or names alternatives. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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