get_enrollment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and achieves maximum clarity with minimal text.

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 read-by-ID tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about return format, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context about the ID parameter beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific enrollment by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enrollments' or 'get_bundle', but the specificity of retrieving by ID provides some implicit distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_enrollments' or 'get_bundle'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context about what constitutes a valid enrollment ID beyond the schema's numeric constraint.

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