get_dp_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies a non-mutating read, which is the right signal, but nothing is said about permissions, whether the Data Provider must exist, or error behavior when dp_id is stale. It adds only marginal context beyond the implied read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields follow. Nothing could be cut without losing content.

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 description is not obligated to explain return values. For a simple read tool with two required identifiers, however, the missing parameter semantics leave a notable hole for correct invocation.

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 both parameters (dp_id, webi_doc_id) are required, yet the description never names or explains either one. It gestures at 'a specific Data Provider' but does not clarify that lookup requires both a document ID and a Data Provider ID, nor what formats they take.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('metadata of a specific Data Provider') and even enumerates the fields returned (name, ID, type, update status). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_dp, get_dp_sql, or get_dp_specification, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which Data Provider getter to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. In a sibling set containing get_dp, get_dp_sql, and get_dp_specification, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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