get_temple_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (detailed information and topic list), but lacks operational details such as error handling (e.g., invalid slug), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence that immediately states the action and target. No extraneous words or redundant explanations are present.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the functional scope. While it does not describe the output format (absent output schema), this is acceptable per evaluation rules.

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%, providing detailed examples of slug values. The description does not redundantly explain the parameter, meeting the baseline expectation when the schema is self-documenting.

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 uses specific language (取得する/retrieve) with a clear resource (特定の寺院の詳細情報とトピック一覧/specific temple details and topic list). While it implies differentiation from 'recommend_temples' by emphasizing a 'specific' temple, it does not explicitly contrast the two tools.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tool 'recommend_temples', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to know the temple slug beforehand.

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