sx_get_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the attach_keys parameter but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what the response structure is, or any side effects. The description is silent on these critical behaviors, leaving the agent to guess the nature of the call.

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 very concise, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second clause about attach_keys is a necessary and useful clarification. No redundant words, but it could have added a bit more context without bloating. Still, it is efficiently written.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not define what data_id and form_id refer to, does not mention the return format, and provides no error handling or edge-case guidance. An agent calling this tool would likely need to rely on examples or external knowledge, which is insufficient.

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% and there are 3 parameters. The description only explains attach_keys ('attachment panel identifier'), giving an example. It does not explain data_id and form_id beyond their names, which are common but still ambiguous (e.g., data_id vs document ID). With zero schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate for all parameters but only partially does.

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 states a clear action (query details by ID) and identifies the resource type (document/bill). It mentions 'official getById' which adds credibility and distinguishes it from a generic query. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sx_get_bill, so it loses a point for not naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other query tools like sx_list_query or sx_get_bill. The phrase 'official getById' implies it is the canonical way to fetch a single record, but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided. The agent has to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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