holded_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency need no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that – the response envelope {status, data} – but omits behavior an open-world executor needs: what happens with an unknown or stale operation_id, and whether there is rate limiting or side-effect risk from open-world access.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, but the terseness is under-specification rather than economy – the same word count could have carried a real routing rule or a parameter hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is essential to a generic open-world dispatcher: which operations are available, how to discover or look up an operation_id, and how this differs from holded_get_operation.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: it never explains that operation_id is a catalog key, nor what query and path_params do (presumably a querystring map and a path placeholder map). An agent must guess both the shape and the source of every argument.

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?

"Execute a catalog GET operation" states a verb and a read-only class of operation, but "catalog" is undefined and the tool never says what domain (Holded documents, contacts, invoices, etc.) or which resources it reaches. An agent cannot distinguish this from holded_get_operation without opening the schema, so the purpose is close to a restatement of the name "read".

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 only guidance is "Inspect its schema first," which is a procedural caution rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this generic executor over holded_get_operation or holded_search_operations, or how to obtain a valid operation_id in the first place.

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