get_appeal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation), so the description does not need to repeat this. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as error behavior (e.g., if ID not found) or return format. Given annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value in conveying the tool's purpose. Perfect conciseness for the information provided.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it lacks any indication of the return value structure or scope of 'details', which would be helpful given no output schema. Adequate but could be slightly more informative.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), placing the burden on the tool description. The description only adds that 'id' is the identifier, but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or expected values (e.g., is it a numeric ID? what range?). This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get appeal details by ID' uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Get appeal details') and specifies the retrieval method ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_appeals (which lists all appeals) and other 'get_' tools for different resources.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_appeals for multiple appeals, or other get tools). Usage is implied by the resource name and ID parameter, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, making it minimally viable.

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