upservice_get_agreement_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description complements this by specifying the return format (JSON with status and attachments), which is not obvious from annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 concise, with a clear purpose stated upfront. The Args/Returns section is efficient, though somewhat formulaic. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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?

Despite the lack of an explicit output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential information. It does not mention error handling, but that is acceptable for a getter.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the top-level parameter 'params', but the description mentions 'task_id (int)'. The schema itself defines 'task_id' with a description, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It confirms the parameter structure but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('agreement sheet'), and the context ('for a task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upservice_get_acquaintance_sheet' and 'upservice_get_agreement_steps' by specifying the exact sheet and including approval status and attachments.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need the agreement sheet for a task) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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